check_section_delete_safe

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the composite logic and output shape (verdict fields, up to 5 ranked blockers, recommended_action). It also explicitly states 'Read-only — never mutates the index,' reinforcing the annotation. No contradictions.

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 dense but well-structured: the first sentence states purpose and inputs, the second covers output and safety. Every clause earns its place, though the long first sentence could be split for readability.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the verdict fields and mentions ranked blockers and recommended_action. It could elaborate on the meaning of safe_to_delete or the ranking criteria, but for a preflight tool it is reasonably complete.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context by naming 'transitive doc-level backlinks' and 'recent-edit recency,' which map to transitive_depth and recent_edit_days, but it does not explicitly tie the parameters to their behavior or provide format details beyond the schema. The repo parameter remains wholly undescribed in both.

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 opens with 'Composite preflight: is this section safe to delete?' which is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the fused inputs (tutorial-path membership, anchor-specific backlinks, transitive backlinks, recency) and the unique verdict output.

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 term 'preflight' gives clear context: this is to be used before deleting a section. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the composite nature implies it replaces multiple lower-level checks, which is sufficient guidance.

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