delete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious side effects — the owned label dies with the element and remaining connectors are detached rather than deleted. It omits whether the operation can be reversed (an `undo` sibling exists) and what happens when element_id does not resolve.

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, zero filler, and the destructive scope is front-loaded before the secondary connector behavior. Nothing is restated from the name or annotations.

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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations and output schema already cover safety and return shape, the description supplies the critical cascade semantics. The remaining gap is reversibility and failure behavior on a missing element.

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% for the single `element_id` parameter, so the description carries the burden, and it only weakly does so: "an element" lets the agent infer the parameter names the target, but there is no statement of accepted id format, whether it may be a name, or what error an unresolvable id produces.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an element") and adds cascade scope: the owned label is removed and surviving connectors are detached. It does not distinguish this from the sibling `clear`, so an agent must infer that delete targets one element while clear presumably wipes more.

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?

Usage is only implied — remove one existing element. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against `clear` (bulk removal) or `update_element`, and no precondition such as the element existing or the deletion being undoable via the sibling `undo`.

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