ruddur_delete_heading

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the auth scope and the 'creator-owned' restriction, which are not captured in annotations. It does not detail irreversibility or downstream effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the double space in 'Requires scope' is a minor typo, and the extreme brevity leaves some useful detail out.

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?

This is a destructive, confirmation-gated delete with optional body/query parameters, but the description does not mention the confirmation requirement, return behavior, or how body/query relate to deletion. With no output schema and many sibling tools, this one-sentence description is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with descriptions for pathParams, confirm, body, and query. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 'Delete a creator-owned Heading', combining a specific verb with the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, get, and list operations. The 'creator-owned' qualifier adds precise scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The mention of 'Requires scope: content.manage' is an authorization prerequisite rather than usage direction. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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