vpp_delete_sequence_diagram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does credibly disclose that the delete is cascading (diagram plus frame, participants, messages, fragments) and that a ref-based reference blocks it. It does not state whether the removal is permanent or recoverable, nor how output_path and overwrite_output govern the write, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences: the destruction scope first, the failure precondition second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, though the meaning would be more accessible if the language matched the English tool and parameter names.

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?

A return schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves the copy/output path semantics and the irreversibility question unanswered, which is a meaningful gap even though the cascade and refusal behavior are covered.

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% and all four parameters are bare titles, yet the description explains only that a diagram is deleted by name. 'W kopii projektu' faintly gestures at the source/output split but says nothing about source_path, output_path, or when overwrite_output must be true — the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Usuwa diagram sekwencji') and enumerates the exact scope of removal (ramkę, uczestników, komunikaty, fragmenty), so the agent knows the blast radius without opening the schema. It is clearly the destructive counterpart to siblings like vpp_get_sequence_diagram and vpp_add_sequence_diagrams, though it never names them explicitly.

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 refusal condition ('Odmówi, jeśli inny diagram odwołuje się do niego przez ref') is a genuine usage constraint that tells the agent this call can fail for referential reasons. The phrase 'w kopii projektu' hints the operation targets a copy rather than the original, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus re-editing a diagram, nor on how the copy workflow should be sequenced.

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