delete_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the tool deletes elements but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deletions are permanent/undoable, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or what happens if some IDs fail. 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context like return values (success/failure indicators), error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., batch processing effects). For a mutation tool in a modeling environment, this leaves significant gaps.

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 100%, with the parameter 'elementIds' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the IDs are for deletion, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('elements from the Revit model'), specifying the mechanism ('by their element IDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'operate_element' or 'get_selected_elements' by focusing exclusively on deletion.

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., needing valid element IDs), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion of all elements), or suggest sibling tools like 'get_selected_elements' for obtaining IDs first.

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