Delete Objects

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation it discloses concrete behavior: locked objects are skipped unless force_unlock is set, the operation is reversible via the undo tool, and it runs without activating Illustrator (no Computer Use). Those are exactly the operational details annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifier, then constraints, then alternatives, then execution mode. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, everything needed to call it safely is present: identifier sourcing, lock handling, reversibility, execution environment, and the layer-wide alternative.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description still adds meaning by explaining the interaction between them: force_unlock exists specifically to override the locked-object skip. Slightly above the baseline 3 because it clarifies conditional behavior rather than restating field names.

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 and resource with the identifier type ('Delete one or more objects by UUID'), and distinguishes itself from layer-level deletion by naming manage_layers. An agent can pick this out from siblings like duplicate_objects or select_objects immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent for UUID discovery (find_objects / get_layers / get_selection), states the locked-object condition, names an alternative for a different scope (manage_layers), and points to the undo path. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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