Delete elements

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it mentions the atomic nature of the deletion, the side effect of left-over labels being reported (labels_left), and the option to delete those labels in the same step. This is valuable. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't contradict that, but it provides more detail.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action (delete elements by id, atomically). It then explains the edge case with labels. The writing is efficient, though the phrasing around 'labels_left' is a bit dense and could be clearer, but it doesn't waste words.

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 complexity (deletion with side effects) and the rich output schema (which likely includes labels_left), the description covers the key points: atomic deletion, handling of orphaned labels, and the option to delete them. It does not explain return values in detail, but that is covered by the output schema. No major missing information.

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 schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters (ids and labels). The description does add a bit of meaning by explaining the behavior around labels (e.g., how labels_left works and the effect of labels=true), but it doesn't add much beyond that. The schema is already clear on parameter types and descriptions, so the description adds only marginal value.

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 the tool deletes elements by id, atomically, and covers the types of elements (walls, rooms, pieces, dimensions, labels, lines). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update' and 'move' by focusing on deletion. However, it could be more explicit about the meaning of 'atomically' and the exact scope of deletion.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when elements need to be deleted by id. It also implicitly suggests that labels can be deleted as part of the same operation (via the 'labels' parameter), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'edit_annotations' or 'update' for modifying elements. The guidance is clear for deletion tasks but doesn't provide exclusions.

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