Delete Component Property

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint; the description adds meaningful context by stating that the removal propagates to every instance and that it applies to main components or variant sets. It does not contradict the annotations and provides extra side-effect awareness beyond the structured 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, target, and consequence. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning its place entirely.

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?

The description captures the core purpose, the allowed node types, and the propagation effect. Given that the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and invocation. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but openWorldHint and the existing schema make those less critical.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already explains nodeId, nodeName, and propertyName with adequate detail. The tool description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but it does not need to since the schema covers the semantics.

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 states a specific action ('Remove a component-property definition'), a clear target ('from a main component or variant set'), and a notable effect ('propagates to every instance'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like component_manage_property, which focuses on property management, and from delete tools for nodes.

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 when to use the tool (when removing a property definition) and notes the propagation consequence, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. The sibling list suggests component_manage_property as the related management tool, but the description does not reference it.

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