assembly_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: invalid inputs are refused, and deleting the last occurrence of a component removes the component from the design. It also describes the return shape. It does not discuss irreversibility, permissions, or undo behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded around the deletion scope and alternatives. The return shape and example are included without unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter delete tool with full schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, alternatives, refusal behavior, side effect, return shape, and an example. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single item parameter. The description adds useful meaning with an example reference format, occurrence:Box:2, though it does not fully document reference syntax beyond that example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and precisely enumerates the resource types it deletes: occurrences, joints, as-built joints, joint origins, and rigid groups. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming body_delete, sketch_delete, and timeline_delete for other entity types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when to use this tool by listing accepted entity types and when not to use it by saying other entities are refused with INVALID_PARAMS. It also names the alternative sibling tools for those refused cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.