Roblox Delete Instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive nature ('delete/destroy') but omits other important traits: whether deletion is irreversible, what happens to child instances, required permissions, or any side effects like triggering model changes. The waitForResponseMs parameter hints at async behavior, but the description does not explain it.

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 clear sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and relies on the schema for parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, prerequisites) that would help an agent assess completeness. It is sufficient but not thorough.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, though it does contextualize the operation within Roblox Studio. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not materially enhance parameter understanding.

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/destroy), the resource (instance), and the context (in Roblox Studio). The verb 'Delete' with parenthetical 'Destroy' precisely conveys the operation, and the tool name aligns perfectly. Among siblings like roblox_clone_instance and roblox_create_instance, this description uniquely identifies a deletion operation.

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 for removing an instance but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., the instance must exist), or when not to use. It is clear enough for a straightforward deletion but lacks explicit context differentiation from similar operations like reparenting or cloning.

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