asana_delete_section

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces these by saying 'DESTRUCTIVE' and adding the key behavioral detail that Asana requires the section be empty or it moves its tasks out. It also discloses the confirm:true gate.

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?

Single compact sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded and all necessary info packed in without filler.

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?

Covers destructive behavior, precondition about empty section, and required confirm flag. It does not mention return value or error cases, but with no output schema and simple params, the essential call context is present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions confirm:true explicitly, but does not explain section_gid format or behavior. It adds some meaning but leaves a gap for the main required parameter.

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 explicitly states the verb ('delete') and resource ('a section'), and the parenthetical about empty/moves tasks out adds precision that distinguishes it from update/reorder siblings.

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?

It implicitly conveys a destructive operation and signals when to use it (when deleting a section) but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The confirm gate adds a usage prerequisite.

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