emacs_org_heading_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive scope ('and its subtree') but does not disclose whether the buffer is modified in memory only, whether the file is automatically saved, whether the action is undoable, or how matching works.

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 focused sentence that communicates the primary action and scope without any filler. Every word adds value.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation, the core effect is stated, but the description omits important operational details such as how headings are matched, whether deletion is persisted, and what happens if the heading text is not found. These gaps matter for an agent invoking a destructive tool without annotations or an output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented with 'Buffer name' and 'Heading text to delete.' The description does not add extra meaning about exact-match semantics, case sensitivity, or uniqueness, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('a heading'), and explicitly scopes the operation to 'its subtree.' This distinguishes it from sibling heading operations like add, update, and move, and adds meaningful detail beyond the tool name alone.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a heading should be edited rather than deleted, or how to handle deletion when multiple headings share the same text. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or side conditions.

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