Delete Section

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: tasks are moved to the default section (NOT deleted), and the last section cannot be deleted. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the exact impact, reducing surprise for the agent. No contradiction 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the two most important caveats (task preservation and last-section restriction). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple single-parameter delete tool, the description covers the action, its side effects, an edge case, and the return type (success message). Combined with rich annotations and a clear schema, the description is complete for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers the sole parameter section_gid with type, required status, and an example. The description does not add extra semantics about the parameter itself, but it does explain what the section deletion entails. Per calibration, high schema coverage (>80%) sets a baseline of 3, and description adds no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 verb ('Delete'), the resource ('a section from a project'), and the scope of action. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like asana_delete_task or asana_update_section by specifying that tasks are moved (not deleted) and that the last section cannot be deleted.

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?

It provides clear operational context: the action deletes a section but preserves tasks, and it cannot delete the final remaining section. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'asana_move_section' for repositioning, 'asana_delete_task' for deleting tasks), so it falls just short of a 5.

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