check_section_delete_safe

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — never mutates the index', which is crucial behavioral information. With no annotations provided, this disclosure helps agents understand safety. The output format is also described, though additional details like required permissions or rate limits are omitted.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Composite preflight') and then detailing components and behavior. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 complexity (multiple checks) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the verdict types and blockers. However, it does not mention error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., section must exist), or edge cases, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 high (75%) with descriptions for section_id, transitive_depth, and recent_edit_days. The tool description adds context about the overall function but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 it is a 'composite preflight' to check if a section is safe to delete, listing specific checks (tutorial-path, backlinks, recency) and output fields. This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling tools that are read-only or analytical.

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 implies usage before attempting to delete a section, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_section_blast_radius or get_backlinks. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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