delete_section

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

The annotation already indicates destructive behavior, and the description adds a behavioral nuance: attempting to delete the END section is disallowed. This goes beyond the basic destructive flag, but it does not elaborate on other potential behaviors like concurrency or error handling.

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 extremely concise, stating only the necessary action and the one critical caveat. It contains no superfluous information and is appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation.

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 that the operation is destructive and involves four parameters, the description omits important contextual details such as the meaning of expected_revision, error conditions, side effects, or any preconditions. The output schema exists but does not cover these behavioral aspects, leaving the description incomplete.

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 schema provides parameter names but no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any parameter. The expected_revision parameter is crucial for optimistic concurrency but is left unexplained. Since schema coverage is zero, the description fails to compensate.

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 the action ('Delete a section') and the object, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also sets it apart from sibling tools like delete_rung by specifying 'section'. The caveat about END being protected adds a clear scope restriction.

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 usage for deleting a section, which is clear from the name and verb. It also provides a specific usage restriction ('END is protected'), indicating when the tool cannot be used. However, it does not mention any alternatives or broader context (e.g., when to prefer this over other deletions).

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