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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent expects data loss; the description usefully qualifies that 'nothing disappears from the site' and that instances become detached plain components. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it omits whether the action is reversible or what happens to the symbol definition itself.

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 tight sentences with the key behavioral caveat front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer. No filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral surprise (detach-not-delete) and the follow-up path. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and any effect on published pages.

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 symbolId is documented as coming 'from list_symbols', so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline for a single fully-documented parameter.

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+resource ('Delete a symbol') and immediately clarifies the non-obvious semantics: instances are detached rather than removed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling swebsy_detach_symbol, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear context for the tool and names an alternative path ('To also remove the copies, delete_section them'), which is actionable routing. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance relative to detach_symbol, the most likely competing choice.

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