DeleteElements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: per-element execution results, and that locked layers produce a failed result rather than a silent skip. It stops short of saying whether deletion is undoable or what permissions are required.

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 written sentences — the core action is front-loaded and the failure-semantics detail earns its place. The trailing '(Tapir, Element Commands)' provenance tag is minor overhead.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the outcome shape and partial-failure behavior, which is the most important gap. It omits reversibility/undo availability and any indication of authorization constraints, leaving real gaps for an irreversible operation.

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?

With one parameter and the schema itself only describing the list as 'A list of elements,' the description's phrase 'for each input element' usefully confirms batch semantics and cardinality. It adds no identifier format or list-size detail beyond that, so it lands at the baseline.

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+resource ('Deletes elements') that clearly distinguishes it from the many create/move/get siblings in the list. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or scoping condition the way a top-tier definition would.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as archicad_undo or the selective filtering implied by the batch input. The only usage signal is the tool name itself.

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