delete_ctrl

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it deletes a selected control object, but does not mention side effects, whether the action is undoable, what happens if no control is selected, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical behavioral details. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity is more due to missing information than efficient structure, so it does not fully earn a higher score.

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?

The tool is destructive and lacks annotations, yet the description does not cover prerequisites (e.g., must have a selection), error conditions, or result expectations. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the behavioral context is still incomplete. An agent would lack crucial information to call this tool safely and effectively.

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 does add value by explaining that doc_id is 'Document ID from open_document', providing source context. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'control object' or selection mechanics, leaving some ambiguity. It barely meets the need for parameter explanation.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('currently selected control object'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'delete_selection' or 'delete_table_row', so it lacks explicit differentiation for an agent choosing among them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. The only extra information is the doc_id parameter source, which is part of the schema, not usage context. An agent has to infer that 'currently selected' implies a prior selection step.

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