delete_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., breaking references in other components), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single, direct sentence that states the core function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential action and parameter, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, usage context, or parameter details, relying solely on the output schema for return values. For a delete operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it safely and effectively.

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%, but the description adds minimal value by specifying that the 'id' parameter identifies the component to delete. However, it doesn't explain what format the ID should be (e.g., UUID, numeric), where to find it, or if it corresponds to outputs from tools like 'get_selection'. The baseline is 3 since there's only one parameter, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Delete') and target ('a component by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transform_component' or 'set_material' beyond the obvious destructive nature, nor does it specify what type of component is being deleted.

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., whether the component must exist), consequences of deletion, or relationships with sibling tools like 'create_component' for re-creation. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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