delete_objects

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds value by explicitly stating that deletion is not recoverable and by recommending hold_scene as a safety step, going beyond the annotation flags. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action and fallback behavior appear first, followed by the critical irreversibility warning and safety instruction. Bilingual redundancy is minor and does not obscure the meaning.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter fallback, and the dangerous side-effect. The suggestion to call hold_scene gives the agent an actionable risk mitigation step, making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 parameter description already explains that objects is an array of names and that omitting it uses the selection. The tool description mostly restates this behavior without adding new semantic detail, so the schema carries the weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('objects') and defines the scope: given objects or the current selection. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like delete_layer or delete_file without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: delete explicitly named objects or fall back to the current selection. It also recommends calling hold_scene before risky deletes, which is practical pre-deletion guidance. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or name alternative deletion tools, but the context is clear.

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