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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the DELETE_SECTION operation on the draft under a revision lock, draft forking from the published head, and the fact that a missing section is an error with or without a key. This is exactly the mutation behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and preservation guarantee, then layers in locking, id handling, and idempotency. Dense but every sentence carries necessary information; minor overlapping of idempotency/error detail keeps it from a perfect 5.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers mutation mechanics, scope of effect, id semantics, idempotent retry, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning: sectionId accepts either id or logicalId with the crucial publish-survival distinction, and idempotencyKey semantics (replay on lost answer, use a new key after errors) are spelled out. This goes well beyond the schema text.

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 and resource ('Remove a section from a page by id') and immediately clarifies preserved scope ('All other sections are preserved'). An agent can distinguish this from delete_page or other destructive siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explains that sectionId comes from get_page_content and that logicalId survives publishing while id does not, which guides correct invocation. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or a 'when-not-to-use' case, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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