gh_delete_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description's 'Remove' is consistent with those annotations and adds the canvas scope, but it does not disclose side effects like whether connected wires are removed or whether the action is reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise without being a tautology, though the brevity leaves out useful supporting details.

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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the basic action, and annotations plus output schema provide safety and return information. However, it is still missing parameter semantics and any guidance on side effects, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 input schema defines component_id as a plain string, and the description gives no detail about what this ID refers to, how to find it, or what format is expected. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, offering only the weak hint that a 'component' is being removed.

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') and resource ('a component from the canvas'), which gives the agent a clear sense of what the tool does. It is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name, but the 'canvas' context helps distinguish it from Rhino object deletion tools and Grasshopper creation tools.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as gh_add_component, gh_component_list, or rhino_object_delete. No prerequisites are mentioned, such as how to obtain a component_id or whether the component must exist before deletion.

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