delete_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes elements and optionally data files, implying destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose whether deletions are permanent/irreversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to dependencies. The phrase 'will prompt' for deleteData suggests interactive behavior, but this isn't fully explained.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete an element') and adds only essential qualification. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover critical context like irreversibility, error conditions, return values, or dependencies. The mention of prompting for deleteData is vague and incomplete. Given the complexity of deletion operations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'deleteData' controls associated file deletion. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('an element'), and specifies the optional scope ('and optionally its associated data files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'deactivate_element' by emphasizing permanent removal. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'remove' or 'archive' operations that might exist conceptually.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deactivate_element' or 'clear_github_auth'. It mentions the optional data deletion but doesn't explain when that's appropriate or what the consequences are. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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