delete_body

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion is irreversible through the API. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before calling. It stops short of saying what else is destroyed (e.g., features referencing the body).

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation stated first and the caveat appended. No filler, nothing that doesn't earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the irreversibility is disclosed. However, for a destructive tool with one fully undocumented parameter, the description should say how to identify a body and what happens to dependent geometry.

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% for the single required 'body' parameter, and the description does not say how to supply it — name, ID, or handle. An agent must guess or infer from list_bodies/describe_body, which the description never mentions.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Delete a body from the design' tells the agent exactly what happens. There is no sibling delete tool, so no differentiation is required, but it also doesn't clarify scope such as whether sub-components or dependent features are affected.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The only guidance offered is a caution ('there is no undo through the API'), which is a consequence, not a routing rule.

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