delete_material

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'Confirm required' specifies a user confirmation step, and 'Removes from all object slots' discloses the cascading side-effect on objects using the material. This goes beyond the annotation.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences: action, requirement, and side-effect. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no filler, making it highly efficient.

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 delete tool with a destructive annotation and output schema, the description covers the essential facts: the action, the confirmation requirement, and the cascading effect on object slots. However, missing explicit parameter semantics (beyond confirm) and lack of comparison to remove_material slightly reduce completeness, but it is still adequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses the confirm parameter ('Confirm required') and leaves the name parameter semantics implicit. While name is obvious from the tool name, the description does not explain the required true value for confirm or any other parameter details, leaving a gap.

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 clearly states 'Delete a material' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from similar tools like remove_material by adding 'Removes from all object slots,' indicating this is a global deletion rather than a per-object removal.

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 implies usage context: use this to fully delete a material, with 'Removes from all object slots' clarifying the scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., remove_material for partial removal) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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