eda_lib_3_dmodel_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the delete action and returns a boolean success flag, but does not mention that deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related entities, requires specific permissions, or how errors are surfaced. Key context for a destructive operation is missing.

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 compact: one signature line, one Chinese purpose phrase, and return type explanation. Every piece is necessary, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 operation, parameters, and return value, but it omits any note on irreversibility, prerequisites, or error handling. The schema covers windowId separately, so that gap is fine. However, for a destructive tool, additional context on permanence and requirements would make it fully 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?

The schema only provides a generic 'args' array without naming elements, but the description supplies the exact signature: modelUuid and libraryUuid as strings in that order. This is essential for constructing the args array, adding significant semantic value beyond the vague schema description.

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 operation: 'lib_3DModel.delete' with the Chinese phrase '删除 3D 模型' (Delete 3D model), and the function signature explicitly names the method and resource. The action and target are unambiguous, and the name distinguishes it from create/get/modify/search siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., model existence, library scope), and no mention of conditions under which deletion might fail. The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it over other library operations.

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