delete_text_to_3d_task

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation, yet it discloses nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether in-progress work is cancelled or the resulting asset is purged. Two words of content for a destructive operation is effectively zero transparency.

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 definition is a single short sentence with no padding or redundancy, so it is not verbose. However, its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and dozens of sibling delete tools, the description needs to do real work and does none. An agent cannot determine consequences or correct invocation from it.

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 single required task_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about its format, where it is obtained (presumably create_text_to_3d_task or list_text_to_3d_tasks), or what happens with an invalid or already-deleted id. The one-parameter case falls below the zero-parameter baseline because the parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 sentence 'Delete a text-to-3d task' restates the tool name almost verbatim and adds no scope, target, or distinguishing detail. The verb and resource are identifiable, but only because of the name, not because the description contributes anything.

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 invoke this versus the many sibling delete tools (delete_animation_task, delete_rigging_task, etc.), no prerequisites, and no mention of when deletion is inappropriate, such as while a task is still streaming or running.

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