Delete a shape

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description goes beyond that by explaining the consequence for connected shapes, which is important behavioral context. It does not mention undo or irreversibility, but the destructive hint covers the primary risk, and the connector warning adds meaningful transparency.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, adds a relevant warning, and then lists the parameters with brief explanations. No unnecessary words or redundant details are present.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, what side effects to watch for, and how to specify parameters. It could mention the return format, but that is not required when an output schema exists. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description provides meaningful context for all three parameters: shape_id is the ID from visio_list_shapes, page is a page name or 1-based index with an omit default, and document is a file name or 1-based index with an omit default. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and gives the agent enough to fill parameters correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a shape from the page.' It names the specific resource (shape) and action (delete), and no sibling tool performs the same action. The additional note about dangling connectors reinforces the purpose.

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 practical guidance on when to use the tool and warns about a key side effect: deleting a box leaves connectors behind. It suggests checking visio_list_connections or deleting those too, which helps the agent decide whether this tool is appropriate. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with non-destructive alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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