Delete a section

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still earns credit by adding context annotations cannot: the action is reversible only through the editor's Ctrl+Z (not an API undo), and user confirmation is required before invoking — both material to an agent's decision to call it.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, how destructive/recoverable it is, and the required precondition. The destructive warning and confirmation requirement are front-loaded where they matter, and no sentence is filler.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the three things an agent actually needs: 1-based indexing, reversibility, and the confirm-first rule. It omits what happens to the remaining sections' indices after deletion, a minor but real gap for a chain of calls.

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 the schema only supplies type=integer and minimum=1, so the description carries the semantics. Saying index is '1-based' is the essential detail (versus 0-based offsets common in APIs) and resolves the ambiguity the schema leaves; it could go further by clarifying the valid upper bound or behavior on out-of-range indices.

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 (delete) and resource (section) plus the scoping operand (index on the current page). The operation is clearly distinguishable from nearby siblings like gsites_move_section, gsites_duplicate_section, and gsites_list_sections, though the description 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?

Gives an explicit precondition — 'Confirm with the user first' — and a concrete remedy path via gsites_press_key (Ctrl+Z). It does not state when the tool should be avoided in favor of a sibling (e.g. when the section index is unknown and gsites_list_sections should be called first), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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