deleteWidget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the blast radius that annotations cannot express: pages/emails using the `[widget=Name]` shortcode will render empty or broken, and the deletion cannot be undone via API. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before calling a destructive 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the destructive warning, then organized into labeled sections that are easy to scan. Minor waste in the 'Required: `widget_id`' line, which merely restates the schema's required array.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the required parameter, the irreversibility, the downstream shortcode breakage, an auditing alternative, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 schema contributes nothing about `widget_id`. The description only repeats that it is required and is an identifier; it does not say where to obtain the id (e.g., from listWidgets) or its format. With a single self-evident integer id, this is adequate but thin.

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 specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a widget by `widget_id`') and makes the scope unambiguous, distinguishing it immediately from the sibling updateWidget/getWidget/listWidgets. The agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the 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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when: removing an unused widget' trigger and names a concrete alternative workflow ('Audit with `listWidgets` + check page content... before deleting'). This is the when/when-not/alternative structure at full strength.

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