object_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an object, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to describe critical traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related elements, or provides confirmation. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence ('객체를 삭제합니다') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with no structured safety information, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'objectId' clearly documented as '삭제할 객체 ID' (ID of the object to delete). The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema adequately covers the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '객체를 삭제합니다' (deletes an object) clearly states the action (delete) and resource (object), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'layer_delete' or 'template_delete', which perform similar deletion operations on different resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify if it's for deleting graphical objects in a design context (as suggested by sibling tools like 'draw_circle' or 'object_duplicate') or clarify prerequisites like object selection. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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