remove_object

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (cleaning up references: device bindings, logic conditions, plan objects) and the failure mode without force (refuses and lists referrers). This is substantive transparency for a delete operation, though it doesn't cover irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 leads with the core action, then adds the reference-cleaning detail, then the force behavior. It is concise without fluff, though the lack of parameter explanations is a drawback.

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 absence of annotations and zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain parameters or provide usage prerequisites. It covers behavior and side effects, but an agent lacks the information needed to confidently call the tool with correct arguments. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but parameter semantics remain a critical gap.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (handle, uid, force). The text mentions 'force' in a behavioral sense but never maps it to the parameter, and handle/uid are completely unexplained. An agent would have to guess what values to provide.

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 ('Удалить' = remove) and the resource ('зону или сценарий' = zone or scenario), and adds a distinctive feature (cleaning references). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate by exclusion, but the resource type is distinct from tools like remove_plan and remove_device, so an agent can infer the intended scope.

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 the tool is for zones/scenarios and mentions the force parameter behavior ('Без force отказывает...'), which gives practical guidance on when to pass force. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is reasonably clear.

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