delete_object

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (message and screenshot) and parameter effects, but omits whether deletion is permanent, whether permissions are required, or what happens to dependent objects. This is an adequate disclosure for a simple deletion but leaves notable gaps.

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 with Args and Returns, and every sentence provides useful information. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but remains focused and scannable.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, and the success/failure message plus screenshot. It does not explain potential error conditions or side effects beyond the deletion itself, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: doc_name, obj_name, include_screenshot, and view_name. It adds practical context, such as when to set include_screenshot to False and choosing the view that best shows the change. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Delete an object in FreeCAD', which names a specific action and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_object, edit_object, and get_object. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to set include_screenshot to False (e.g., intermediate steps to save tokens), but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools. The context of deleting versus editing/creating is implicit, so it falls short of a 5 but is better than no guidance.

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