delete_view_section

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by explicitly stating that views are NOT deleted and are auto-promoted, and includes a 'Verified' date for reliability. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides crucial behavioral nuance. No fluff. Front-loaded with the action. The 'Verified' date adds a minor but useful trust signal without harming conciseness.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter context well, but since there is no output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or error structure). This is a minor gap for completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema for parameters like appId, sectionId, or debug. The schema already notes that sectionId is 'vsc-prefixed', and debug's effect is described in schema.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a sidebar section' (verb+resource) and distinguishes the behavior from sibling tools like delete_view by clarifying that views inside the section are not deleted but promoted to ungrouped. This provides clear purpose and differentiation.

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 clarifies the key behavioral result (views are auto-promoted), guiding users on when to use this tool (to remove a section while keeping its views). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, but the context from sibling names implies differentiation.

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