Delete elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the atomic deletion semantics, the side effect of orphaning labels, the labels_left reply structure, and the rationale for index-code invalidation — real behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, but the sentence is a long, em-dash-heavy run-on; the clause about an index code pointing at another piece being 'found by nobody' is confusing and could be trimmed. Structure is functional but not clean.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still characterizes the labels_left payload and the labels flag. It covers scope, atomicity and side effects; what remains thin is guidance on failure modes or partial-deletion behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the consequence of labels=true (labels deleted in the same step) and clarifying that ids accept any element type, adding intent beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 names a specific verb (delete/remove) and concrete resources (walls, rooms, pieces, any element by id), plus the atomicity trait. It is unambiguous versus swap-style siblings like move or update, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the edit_* family, which also mutate model elements.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer when to set labels=true (to also purge dangling labels) from the explanation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to an alternative tool, so this is minimum-viable rather than instructive.

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