onenote_delete_section

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the section is moved to the recycle bin by default (recoverable), can be permanently erased with permanent:true, and that the entire section including all pages is deleted. This adds valuable behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, covering all necessary details without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple destructive tool with 100% schema coverage, the description fully covers the behavior, the effect on pages, the safety warning, and the permanent option. No output schema is needed, and nothing 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully (section_id required, permanent boolean with default false). The description adds slight context (permanent:true erases, recycle bin default) but does not significantly go beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Delete a section' with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies that it deletes the entire section and all its pages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_page or delete_notebook.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it is destructive, requires confirming the section ID, and explains the default recycle bin behavior with the permanent option. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.

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