delete_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions returning a success/failure message and a screenshot, but does not warn about irreversibility, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), permissions, or what happens if the object does not exist. This is a significant gap 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 concise and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no excessive detail or repetition.

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 simplicity, the description covers the core behavior but misses important context for a destructive action (e.g., permanence, error handling, prerequisites). The return value is described, and having no output schema reduces the burden, but a warning about deletion consequences would make it more complete.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section explicitly explains doc_name and obj_name, adding meaning beyond the parameter names. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 an object in FreeCAD' with specific parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_object and edit_object. The verb 'delete' and resource 'object' make the purpose 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?

The description implies usage (use when you need to delete an object), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. No alternatives are named, but the context of siblings makes the intended use clear.

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