Delete Layout Element

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added destructive gate and confirm=true requirement provide useful safety context. It does not elaborate on what exactly is removed or undo semantics, but the safety profile is clear.

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?

One compact sentence with purpose front-loaded and the confirmation requirement second. No words are wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for helpful context.

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 five-parameter operation with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the confirm gate but omits argument context and alternative guidance; the output schema handles return values.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies confirm=true and an identifier by unique name/URI. It leaves aprx_path, layout_name, element_name, and element_type semantics largely undocumented.

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 (delete/删除) and resource (layout element/布局元素) with an identification method (unique name/URI). The operation is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling layout-element mutation tools.

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 a precondition (confirm=true) but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as layout_upsert_element or other layout element tools. There is no when-not or contextual routing information.

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