bw_object_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It explicitly states 'Irreversible', which is a critical destructive trait. It also hints at a locking requirement for InfoArea. However, it doesn't describe the operation's side effects (e.g., whether dependent objects are cascaded), return values, or required permissions. The irreversibility disclosure is valuable, but other behavioral aspects are left implicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and irreversibility are front-loaded, followed by a precise parameter rule. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 it's a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, that it's irreversible, and the type-specific parameter requirements. It doesn't explain error handling or confirmation, but for a delete operation with this level of simplicity, it's fairly complete. A slight gap is the lack of guidance on what happens on success (e.g., return value), but that's minor without an output schema.

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 already describes objectType and lockHandleOrTransport, but objectName has no description. The description adds the crucial distinction: lock handle for InfoArea, transport request for others, which is not evident from the schema alone. This compensates for the 67% coverage by clarifying the conditional parameter semantics.

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 any BW object' – a specific verb and resource – and adds the critical 'Irreversible' warning. It also specifies the type-dependent parameter handling (lock handle vs transport request), which distinguishes it from the sibling bw_area_delete that targets only InfoAreas.

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 gives parameter-specific instructions for InfoArea vs other types but does not explicitly state when to prefer this generic tool over the sibling bw_area_delete. It implies this is the catch-all delete tool, but doesn't mention the alternative or conditions for choosing it. Some guidance is present (lock handle vs transport), but no when-to-use vs alternatives.

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