Delete a custom section from a Wanderlog trip

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: the section AND all blocks inside it are permanently removed, which section types are protected, that ambiguous headings cause a failure with nothing deleted, and what the tool returns. These are real operational facts an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 tight paragraphs — action, eligibility constraints, behavior/return — front-loaded with the destructive verb. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the constraint set, the failure mode, and the return value. There is no obvious gap an agent would need to guess about before calling.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the 'section' parameter is matched by heading, and a non-unique heading causes a fail-without-delete rather than an arbitrary deletion. That uniqueness rule is genuinely new information about how the argument is resolved.

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 and resource ('Deletes a custom section from a Wanderlog trip itinerary') and immediately scopes it to custom sections only, distinguishing it from the sibling wanderlog_add_section and wanderlog_update_section. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the when-not: day sections, the default 'Places to visit' list, and system sections are protected. It also names where custom sections come from (wanderlog_add_section). It stops short of routing the agent to a specific alternative for the protected cases (e.g., rename_day or update_section), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives.

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