delete_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the destructive and irreversible nature ('DESTRUCTIVE', 'cannot be undone') and the cascading deletion of associated configuration. This is exemplary transparency.

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 well-structured with a warning label, clear explanation, explicit confirmation instruction, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the action scope, irreversibility, and the required confirmation flow. No critical missing context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line meanings for both parameters, including clarifying section_id as 'section/task'. While basic, it adds meaningful context beyond the bare parameter names.

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's action: 'Permanently remove a section from a study.' It specifies the resource (section) and the full scope (section, interview guide, and associated configuration), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_study.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance by instructing the agent not to call the tool in the same turn as the deletion request and to wait for user confirmation. However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., update_section) or situations where deletion is inappropriate, so it falls short of a 5.

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