Delete Capacities Object

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical traits: default behavior moves the object to Capacities trash and is recoverable, while hard_delete=true is permanent and irreversible. It omits secondary effects an agent might need, such as what happens to linked objects or backlinks and whether an error occurs if the object is already trashed.

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 tight sentences with the recoverability consequence front-loaded and the destructive caveat attached directly to the flag that triggers it. No filler, no repetition beyond what is needed to bind behavior to the parameter.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essential risk information is present, so an agent can call it safely in the common case. Completeness is weakened by the absence of any statement about cascade effects on linked content, permissions, or the result of deleting a non-existent or already-trashed object.

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 both objectId and hard_delete are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates the hard_delete semantics rather than adding new meaning. It adds nothing about objectId format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Delete an object'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like update_object, append_to_object, or unlink_from_context. It never names a sibling to contrast with, but the operation itself leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 hard_delete=true/false explanation implicitly tells an agent which mode to pick for recoverable vs permanent removal, which is useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to delete at all versus unlinking or updating (siblings exist), and no prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the object must exist.

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