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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: it can delete elements nested inside groups or masks, and it enforces a minimum top-level element constraint. This provides additional operational detail without contradicting the 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: two sentences, with the primary action and scope stated up front. The additional constraint about top-level elements is valuable and succinctly expressed. Every sentence earns its place without 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 deletion tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: scope (anywhere in tree), context (existing composition), and a critical constraint (must keep at least one top-level element). The schema handles parameter details, and annotations handle safety, so the description is adequately complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics; it merely references 'the given id'. The schema already thoroughly documents both id and project_id, so the description adds no extra value here.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Delete the element with the given id, anywhere in the tree.' It also specifies the scope (including nested elements) and positions it as a tweak to an existing composition, distinguishing it from creation tools like add_element. The constraint about keeping at least one top-level element adds further clarity.

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 implies usage context: it is for modifying an existing composition by deleting an element. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear given sibling tools like add_element and edit_element. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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