delete_section_break

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the technical operation (removal of XML element), the error condition (ValueError if no section break), and the effect on document structure. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but for a simple deletion this is adequately transparent.

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?

Description is succinct with a one-line summary, followed by technical details, arguments, and raises section. No wasted words; all content earns its place.

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?

Given low complexity (1 param) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the action, input, and error behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns (likely void) but output schema can cover that. Slight lack of guidance on when to use relative to other section tools, but overall adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameter meaning. It states 'para_id: paraId of the paragraph that holds the section break', which adds clear semantics beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it does not explain how to obtain para_id.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource 'section break from a paragraph'. It contrasts with sibling tool 'add_section_break' and provides technical detail (removes w:sectPr from w:pPr) making purpose unmistakable.

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?

Description explains the consequence of removal: 'paragraph's content flows into the next section'. This implies when to use (to merge sections) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools provides some contrast.

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