delete_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly signals destructive action, adds the dependent-object risk, and discloses an API quirk about silent owner deletion. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though error or undo behavior is not addressed.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The main action, consequence, and limitation are each clearly presented, making the description scannable and efficient.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the target, selection requirement, dependency risk, and valid input restrictions. It does not explain behavior for nonexistent features beyond the face/edge/vertex case, but the essential context is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by tying entity_id to an 'explicitly selected native feature' and excluding face/edge/vertex IDs. document_id is not elaborated, though its role is self-evident from the parameter name. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete the explicitly selected native feature.' The qualifiers 'explicitly selected' and 'native' distinguish this from sibling create_feature and update_feature, and make the target object unambiguous.

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 description establishes that this tool is for deleting an explicitly selected native feature and warns about dependent effects. It also provides a clear exclusion: face/edge/vertex deletion is rejected because API5 would silently delete the owner. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for those cases, so it is not a 5.

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