delete_prim

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description's real contribution is the cascade semantics — deleting children too — which is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context that annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating irreversibility or side effects on references/instances.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the single most important qualifier (child cascade). Nothing redundant.

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?

Output schema and parameter docs are handled elsewhere, so the description only needs behavioral coverage; it provides the cascade scope but says nothing about failure modes, undo, or effect on instanced/referenced prims — meaningful omissions for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the prim_path property already documents the expected format ("Full USD path of the prim, e.g. /World/Robot"). The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (prim) and adds scope (and all its children), which distinguishes it from the other mutating siblings like clone_prim or set_visibility. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any alternative delete/undo path, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus other cleanup approaches, no preconditions (does the path need to exist? does it fail on a missing prim?), and no note about reversibility. The agent is left to infer everything from the single sentence.

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