Delete a section from a legal document like Impressum, Datenschutz, or AGB by specifying site, document type, and section slug.
Delete a section from a legal document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | Document type | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | Yes | Section slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the mutation but discloses nothing about reversibility, permissions required, whether child content or references are cascaded/removed, or the effect on the rendered 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the consequence of deletion and any safeguards. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to guess about destructive behavior.
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 all three params (site, doc, slug) documented and an enum on doc, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning such as slug format or where slugs originate.
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 (section of a legal document), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as legal_add_section or legal_update_section, so it falls short of a 5.
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 on when to use this versus legal_update_section or legal_add_section, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.