delete_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a section' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description provides no information about permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to child elements (if any), error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 maximally concise at just three words. There's absolutely no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description itself is efficiently structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to address critical behavioral aspects (permanence, permissions, side effects), provides no usage guidance despite numerous sibling alternatives, and offers minimal value beyond the tool name. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these fundamental gaps in a potentially dangerous operation.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'section_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'Delete a section' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it clearly indicates the action (delete) and resource (section), it doesn't provide any additional specificity about what constitutes a section or how this deletion differs from other deletion operations in the sibling tools list.

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 description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling deletion tools (delete_attachment, delete_case, delete_cases, delete_milestone, delete_plan, delete_plan_entry, delete_run, delete_run_from_plan_entry), there's no indication of what distinguishes deleting a section from these other deletion operations or any prerequisites for using this tool.

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