modify_or_delete_elements

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive mutation. The description confirms deletion/movement and adds the visual-QA remediation context. It does not disclose whether deletions are reversible, how moves are applied, or any permission or ordering constraints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, for a destructive two-parameter tool it is too bare to provide useful structure, and the brevity leaves critical usage and parameter details unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with zero schema description coverage and destructive annotations, the description should do more to explain parameter semantics, permanence of deletion, and when this should be used instead of related tools. It is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description only vaguely implies deletion through 'listed elements' and movement through 'moves,' but it does not explain delete_ids, move_vectors_mm, their formats, or how the two operations interact.

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 states a specific verb pair and resource: 'Deletes or moves listed elements.' It also ties the action to 'issues found during visual QA,' which gives useful purpose context. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the related visual QA sibling, but the action itself is clear.

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?

Usage is implied through 'to fix issues found during visual QA,' suggesting it should follow visual QA discovery. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as undo_last or generate_visual_qa_overlay.

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