elements_delete

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

Annotations only state destructiveHint=true; the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral rule — deletions that would break fragment references are rejected, so the agent can expect partial/blocked failure modes. It still omits cascade behavior for child elements and how expectedRevision conflicts are handled.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is tight, though the brevity contributes to the parameter and usage gaps rather than compensating for them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the destructive hint is covered. However, for a four-parameter mutation with a required concurrency token and no schema descriptions, an agent still lacks enough to call it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 0% across four required parameters. The description only implies that 'ids' are explicit element identifiers; it says nothing about expectedRevision (optimistic-concurrency token), path, or workspaceId, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Deletes ... SVG elements.' The qualifier 'explicitly selected' usefully narrows scope (ID-based, not query-based deletion), which separates it from siblings like elements_query or elements_update without naming them.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternatives named. An agent gets no help deciding between this, elements_update, document_apply_operations, or defs_vacuum, nor any prerequisite about resolving element IDs before deletion.

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