Delete navigator items

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: irreversibility ('cannot be undone through this connector'), a cascade warning ('layouts with their drawings'), and per-item partial-result semantics via the output shape.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: scope, irreversibility/precondition, and output contract. Scope is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape including per-item success/error entries, which is exactly what an agent needs for a batch destructive call. Combined with the cascade and irreversibility notes, nothing essential 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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema documents the GUID format, maxItems 500, and references get_navigator_tree). The description adds no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Deletes') and resource ('navigator items'), then enumerates the affected subtypes (saved views, View Map folders, layouts, subsets, Project Map viewpoints). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_drawings and delete_hotlinks.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition and routing: 'check ids with get_navigator_items first,' which names the sibling used to obtain valid ids. It doesn't state when-not to use it or list alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is clear and actionable.

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