delete_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an object and returns a success/failure message with a screenshot, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects on the document, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return explanations. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the next two clarify inputs, and the last describes outputs. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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 (destructive operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context like safety warnings or dependencies. The output schema likely details the return structure, reducing need to explain returns in the description.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'doc_name' as the document containing the object and 'obj_name' as the object to delete. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's generic titles ('Doc Name', 'Obj Name'), though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., naming rules).

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('an object in FreeCAD'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_object' and 'edit_object' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_object' or 'get_objects' beyond the verb difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete protected objects), or recommend other tools for related tasks. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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