delete_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It mentions undo participation but fails to disclose destructive nature, permission requirements, or side effects on related elements. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 very short (two sentences) with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative while remaining concise. It earns a 4 for efficiency but lacks depth.

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 two-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or constraints (e.g., whether all kinds require certain permissions). The undo note is helpful but insufficient.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters 'uuid' and 'kind'. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose of the kind enum or how the UUID is used. The agent gains no guidance beyond the schema itself.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'element by UUID', making the tool's primary purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_grid by focusing on elements.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of undo is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline. There is no exclusionary context or comparison to sibling tools like move_element or set_attributes.

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