delete_arrangement_cue_point

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

The annotation destructiveHint is false, but the description says 'delete' which is inherently destructive. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not disclose the two-phase confirmation requirement, and the annotation misrepresents the tool's destructive nature.

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 a single sentence and front-loads the core action, but it is too sparse to be useful. It is concise in length but not in meaning—missing essential operational context.

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-phase operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to mention the planning step, confirmation requirements, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot safely call this tool based on this description alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond restating 'one exact Arrangement cue point.' It does not explain the relationship between dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken, or why expectedStateVersion is required—critical semantics for correct invocation.

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 action (delete) and the resource (Arrangement cue point), and distinguishes it from siblings like create, rename, or jump. However, 'Plan or delete' is slightly ambiguous—it could imply two separate modes but doesn't explicitly clarify the two-phase dry-run/execute pattern.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the prerequisite of planning (dryRun) before deletion, the need for expectedStateVersion, or that a confirmationToken is required for the actual delete. The description leaves the agent to infer the workflow from the schema alone.

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