etabs_delete_object

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds a return value ('Success confirmation') but does not cover error handling (e.g., what happens if object doesn't exist) or side effects, leaving gaps despite annotations.

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?

Highly concise: 4 lines including Args and Returns. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple deletion tool with 2 parameters and output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return. However, it lacks discussion of idempotency, error behavior, or prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps despite annotations.

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 compensates by specifying valid values for object_type ('point', 'frame', 'area', or 'link'). For 'name', it adds only minimal clarification. Overall, adds moderate value beyond the schema titles.

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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'named object', specifying parameters object_type (with explicit valid values: point, frame, area, link) and name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like etabs_delete_results or etabs_add_area.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. While the purpose is clear, there is no contextual guidance beyond the obvious deletion scenario.

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