rhino_delete

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

The description adds the word 'permanently', which clarifies that deletion is irreversible, complementing the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, behavior on invalid GUIDs, or interaction with undo. Given that the annotation already signals destructiveness, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and selection method. It is optimally concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the essentials but lacks important context such as irreversibility warnings (beyond the word 'permanently'), the need for existing objects, and any undo behavior. While the destructiveHint annotation covers some of this, the description could still better prepare an agent for safe usage.

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?

The description mentions 'by GUID' but does not explain the GUID format, whether multiple GUIDs are accepted, or how they relate to object selection. The schema's parameter description already states 'GUIDs of objects to delete', and with schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description should compensate but does not offer additional semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific action (delete), a resource (objects), and a selection method (by GUID). It is clear enough to distinguish from layer-specific deletion (rhino_delete_layer), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives. The one-sentence description is sufficient for understanding the primary function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that layer deletion should use rhino_delete_layer, nor does it warn about the destructive nature or any prerequisites (e.g., object existence). The lack of explicit usage context makes it easy for an agent to misuse it.

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