delete_document_section

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description isn't duplicating that. It adds genuine value by warning 'IRREVERSIBLE', 'cannot be undone', and 'confirm with the user before invoking' — critical behavioral context beyond what annotations state. Also clarifies the post-delete workflow dependency on publish_document.

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?

Description is compact at 3 sentences with a prominent warning prefix. Every sentence earns its place: warnings, action, follow-up, user-confirmation guidance. Slightly verbose phrasing but front-loaded with the most critical info first.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risks (irreversibility), the required follow-up (publish_document), and the confirmation requirement. It lacks detail on what happens to linked resources or dependent content, but for a 2-param delete operation this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. Description adds the provenance note that section_id comes from list_document_sections (in the schema) and mentions publish_document as a follow-up step. The schema handles the parameter semantics well, so the description doesn't need to add much; baseline 3 with slight bump for the workflow context.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource ('deletes a section from an IT Glue document'), clearly states permanence and irreversible nature, and distinguishes from siblings like update_document_section and create_document_section. Also distinguishes from archive_document (which is reversible).

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?

Explicitly instructs to call publish_document after editing and to confirm with the user before invoking. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives like archive/revert for reversible cases. The 'confirm with the user' guidance is a strong, clear usage directive.

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