elements_delete

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

The annotation already sets destructiveHint=true, and the description complements it by adding the behavioral detail about rejecting deletions that break fragment references. This adds transparency beyond the annotation by describing a safety guard. No contradiction with destructiveHint; 'Deletes' matches. It earns a 4 for adding useful context.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('Deletes explicitly selected SVG elements'). It wastes no words. However, it omits crucial parameter information, so the brevity is not fully justified; it's concise but incomplete.

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?

Even though the output schema exists (so return values may be covered there), the description lacks vital context for a destructive operation. It does not explain the parameters, the need for expectedRevision (concurrency control), or the workspace/path context. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional schema details, making it incomplete for practical use.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention ids, path, workspaceId, or expectedRevision at all. The description only describes the tool's general behavior, leaving agents to infer parameter meanings from names and patterns alone. This is a severe gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 deletes SVG elements and adds a specific guard ('rejects deletions that would leave fragment references broken'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like elements_update and elements_create. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'explicitly selected' means or differentiate from any potential delete-like siblings, so not a 5.

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 a usage constraint: deletions are only allowed when they won't break fragment references. This gives some context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites or related workflows, so usage guidance is minimal.

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