remove_unused_sections

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

Annotations already carry the core safety profile: destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the useful 'unused only' qualifier, telling the agent that in-use sections are spared. However, it does not disclose what counts as 'unused' (e.g., no element references), whether the operation is reversible, or the post-condition of the model. Some context beyond annotations, but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action verb. The only imperfection is the redundant Chinese parenthetical that repeats the English meaning verbatim, adding no information but negligible bulk.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs to invoke it: it removes unused sections and is destructive. The main residual gap is the undefined criteria for 'unused' sections, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a serious omission.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document regarding arguments, and no parameter semantics are needed beyond the schema's empty properties object. The description correctly imposes no arg expectations.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Clean up and remove all unused sections from the model'. The qualifier 'all unused' clearly differentiates it from the sibling remove_section, which targets a specific section. An agent can tell this is the bulk-cleanup tool without opening any schema.

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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like remove_section or when to avoid it. The implications that it is for post-modeling cleanup, but no explicit context, preconditions, or exclusions are provided. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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