remove_object

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing that deletion is blocked when referenced unless force=True, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the action ('Delete an object'), and the second adds a critical condition. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a destructive tool with good annotations. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral nuance. Could mention irreversibility or success indicators, but overall sufficient given the structured schema and output schema (exists).

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 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters fully. However, it adds meaning to the force parameter by relating it to the blocking behavior, which provides context beyond the schema's 'Remove even if referenced by other objects.'

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete an object' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_object, duplicate_object, rename_object, and remove_objects (plural) by specifying the singular action and the condition about references.

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 provides context on when to use force=True ('Blocked if referenced unless force=True'), offering clear guidance on a key condition. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like remove_objects or state when not to use this tool.

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