hex-delete-cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It does not state reversibility, required permissions, error behavior for a missing/invalid cellId, or side effects on ordering or downstream runs. The only behavioral hint is the 'draft version' scoping, which is thin for a delete 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint appears immediately after the verb, so the agent gets the essential meaning first.

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, unannotated tool with no output schema and an undocumented identifier parameter, this definition leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot tell what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or how to source a valid cellId.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says only that cellId is a required string. The description implies the target is a cell but adds no format (UUID? slug?), no example, and no indication of where an agent obtains a valid cellId (e.g., hex-list-cells). The gap the schema leaves is unfilled.

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 (delete) and resource (cell), plus a scoping qualifier ('draft version of a project') that separates it from sibling delete tools like hex-delete-guide-draft and hex-delete-group. It does not explicitly name those siblings or say how cells differ from their non-draft counterparts, but the action is unambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (does the caller need draft-edit permission? must the cell belong to the caller?), and no alternative tools. The phrase 'draft version' implies a publishing workflow but never says when deletion is appropriate versus hex-update-cell.

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