delete_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns of destructiveness and advises checkpointing, which is the critical behavior. It does not mention reversibility via undo or specifics about children, but the destructive warning is prominent and sufficient for a basic deletion tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the destructive warning immediately follows. Highly concise and structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description covers the core destructive nature and checkpoint advice, but omits the meaning of delete_children and any note about undo or return values. For a two-parameter destructive tool, the missing parameter explanation is a notable gap, though the tool is simple.

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 50%: only 'name' has a description ('Object to delete'); 'delete_children' has no description. The tool description adds no parameter details at all, leaving the behavior of delete_children (e.g., whether it recursively deletes) unexplained. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 'Delete one object' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (object), and the singular 'one' differentiates it from the sibling delete_objects. The purpose 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?

The description provides a clear usage caution: 'DESTRUCTIVE -- make a checkpoint first if it matters.' This tells the agent when to take a precautionary step. It implicitly distinguishes from delete_objects by the singular scope, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or conditions for using the plural version.

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