delete_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait beyond the name: deleting a component also deletes the mates that hold it. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, undo, or required permissions — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its side effect, then the parameter note, then the return summary. Every sentence earns its place; the parenthetical naming example is the only slightly verbose element.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (mates deleted, remaining components, mass properties). Combined with the parameter explanation and the cascade warning, this is nearly complete for a single-parameter tool; only precondition/permission details are 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'component' is the name as it appears in list_components, including the exact naming convention ('Bracket-1', or bare 'Bracket' while unique). That is real meaning beyond a bare string parameter, though format nuances (case sensitivity, resolution of ambiguous names) remain unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a component from the current assembly') and immediately qualifies the scope with the cascading effect ('with the mates that hold it'). That cascading clause is what separates it from siblings like delete_mate and suppress_mate, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening a schema.

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?

The phrase 'from the current assembly' implies the precondition that an assembly is active, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as suppress_mate or delete_mate. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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