delete_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that children, attached connectors, labels, and now-orphaned defs are destroyed as a side effect, and that removed ids plus a defs_removed count come back. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements, whether the deletion is undoable, or how doc_id selects the target document.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by consequences and return values. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the parentheses and the mid-sentence 'go too' phrasing make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destruction semantics and return payload reasonably, but leaves doc_id behavior and any auth/undo information unexplained, so an agent still lacks the full picture needed to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of ids (element identifiers whose children and dependents cascade), which is genuinely useful, but doc_id is entirely unaddressed, including what its null default means or whether it falls back to the active document.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Delete elements ... by id') and immediately scopes the action with its cascade boundary (children, attached connectors, labels, orphaned defs). An agent can distinguish this from update_elements or z_order 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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as update_elements, run_actions, or import_file, nor any precondition beyond needing ids. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'by id'; there is no when/when-not guidance and no named alternative.

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