rhino_bim_pset_delete

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate destructiveness. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it doesn't clarify that the operation is irreversible, whether it affects nested properties, or what happens if the pset does not exist. The description does not contradict the annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Remove every property'). It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could add a brief note about doc_id or irreversibility without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has destructive annotations and a small schema, but the description is too thin for a delete operation. It doesn't specify which document context applies, any prerequisites (e.g., object must exist, pset must exist), or what the return/confirmation looks like. An agent could call it incorrectly without knowing whether to target the active document or another one.

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 only mentions 'a named PropertySet' and 'an object', which maps to pset_name and object_id but doesn't explain them further. doc_id is not mentioned at all in the description. The schema's own parameter descriptions are minimal, so the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 'Remove every property under a named PropertySet from an object.' states a specific verb (remove), resource (property set), and scope (from an object). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rhino_bim_pset_get and rhino_bim_pset_set, but it doesn't explicitly mention the destructive/irreversible nature.

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 usage: when you want to delete an entire property set from a BIM object. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like rhino_bim_pset_set could modify instead of delete. No prerequisites or context for when deletion is appropriate are given.

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