delete_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action (mark as deleted) and author parameter, but does not disclose side effects (modifies document in place), required permissions, error behavior if text not found or not in a single run, or if changes are immediate.

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 brief and includes a clear first sentence and a constraint. The parameter list is helpful but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall efficient with no 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. The description mentions a key constraint (single run), but omits preconditions like document must be open, paragraph exists, or that the tool requires a change-tracking enabled environment.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains para_id identifies the paragraph, text is exact text to delete, and author is revision author. However, it lacks details like para_id format, how to obtain it, or that author defaults to 'Claude'.

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 tool marks text as deleted using Word's track-changes markup, with a visual cue (red strikethrough). It distinguishes itself from siblings like accept_changes and reject_changes by showing it creates, not processes, changes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., insert_text, reject_changes). The constraint 'text must exist within a single run' implies a precondition but does not cover context like document being open.

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