Delete elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: deletion is irreversible and the tool refuses to act without confirm=true. This informs the agent of the safety gate and irreversible side effects, which are not visible in the schema or annotations. The added value is substantial for a destructive operation.

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 composed of three short, purposeful fragments: the action, the irreversibility warning, and the confirm requirement. Each sentence earns its place and the critical caution is front-loaded. There is no redundant phrasing or 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 destructive tool with three parameters, zero schema coverage, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It omits the meaning of guids, the role of port, what 'elements' refers to, and the operational scope of deletion. An output schema exists but does not clarify invocation semantics. The description works as a warning label but not as complete tool documentation.

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 for three undocumented parameters. It only clarifies confirm (it must be true) and says nothing about the required 'guids' or optional 'port.' The most important parameter, guids, is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer what identifiers are expected. Partial compensation is insufficient.

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 and resource ('Delete elements') and immediately adds the key qualifier 'IRREVERSIBLE,' making the operation unambiguous. No sibling tool performs deletion, so there is no risk of confusion with move/create/query tools. The purpose is clearly distinguished from all alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as move_elements or create_elements. The only instruction, 'Refuses without confirm=true,' is an invocation precondition rather than a decision rule for tool selection. An agent receives no context about appropriate use cases or conditions that should prevent deletion.

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