起動中プロジェクトのオブジェクト削除(リアルタイム)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the operation is a deletion, implying destructive action, but does not mention irreversibility, side effects on dependent objects, or whether it applies to the currently active project (only the title implies real-time). No error handling or success/failure behavior is documented.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key mechanism (layer/frame_start identification). It is free of fluff or repetition. It could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, so it doesn't earn a 5, but it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

As a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a very terse description, the context is incomplete. Missing are details on sequence (e.g., must be in a live session), consequences, reversibility, and expected return values. The description provides only the core mechanism, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely decide to invoke this tool.

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 description adds meaning to the parameters by stating that layer and frame_start together identify the target object. This goes beyond the schema's bare integer types and minimum constraints. However, it does not explain what these values semantically represent or how they uniquely locate the object, so the compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 tool's function: it identifies and deletes an object using layer and frame_start parameters. The verb '削除する' (delete) plus the specific resource ('対象オブジェクト') makes the purpose unambiguous. The title further clarifies it operates on a running project in real-time, distinguishing it from sibling live_* tools and the non-live delete_object.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_object or live_update_object. The description only explains how the object is identified, not the context in which this real-time deletion is appropriate. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be running) or exclusions.

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