delete_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Delete' signals destructiveness and the point-line relationship hints at geometric consequences, but the description never states whether deleting a point also affects its associated line, whether the operation is reversible/undoable, or what constraints exist (e.g., minimum point counts or validity rules).

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Delete an outline point') and a tightly scoped clarifying parenthetical. The cross-reference to get_pattern_geometry earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool (two simple integer params, no output schema), the description is adequate: it states the operation and the indexing convention. However, the point-line relationship introduced in the description raises an obvious unanswered question — what happens to the line when the point is deleted — and no error or undo behavior is mentioned, which matters 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does exactly that for point_index by explaining that point n is the start point of line n — genuine meaning the schema cannot convey. pattern_index is left to inference, but the sibling-tool convention and parameter name make its purpose reasonably clear.

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 ('outline point'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools like delete_line, delete_pattern, and delete_fabric. The parenthetical adds the non-obvious indexing convention ('point n is the start point of line n'), which sharpens what exactly is being targeted.

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 cross-reference to get_pattern_geometry implies the intended workflow — understand the geometry before deleting points — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Given that several sibling tools also delete or modify pattern structures, naming an alternative or condition would have been stronger.

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