delete_meeting_section

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substance beyond them: children are deleted rather than moved, the action cannot be undone, and two specific server-side rejection states are called out. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its cascade, followed by prerequisites and irreversibility. No filler; only the version-requirement sentence could be considered secondary.

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, non-idempotent-looking mutation with no output schema, the description covers failure modes, reversibility, and side effects well. The remaining hole is identifying the target section, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 50%: `confirm` is well documented in the schema as a preview-then-apply flag, but `section_id` has no description anywhere. The description never explains what a section id refers to or how to obtain one (list_meeting_sections), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (delete) and resource (meeting section) and immediately discloses the cascade: agenda items and their outcomes are deleted, not re-parented. That cascade note is what distinguishes it from delete_meeting_agenda_item or delete_meeting_outcome for an agent scanning 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?

Gives concrete preconditions and exclusions: requires OpenProject 17.6+, is rejected while the meeting is closed, and is rejected for the backlog section. It does not name an alternative tool for cases where deletion is blocked (e.g., deleting agenda items individually), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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