delete_selection

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 identifies this as a destructive 'Delete' operation but does not mention side effects such as selection state, undo behavior, or whether the deletion is permanent. The option field is also left ambiguous beyond the value 0.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is useful and free of fluff. It loses one point because the option explanation is ambiguous enough that it could mislead rather than clarify.

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 tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not address preconditions beyond doc_id origin, alternative option values, or post-condition behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing operational context still makes this incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for doc_id by linking it to open_document, and it explains option as '0 = selected content.' However, it does not clarify whether other option values exist or what they do, leaving an integer parameter partially unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Delete the selected content.' This makes the tool's core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like clear_selection or delete_ctrl, so it falls short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'doc_id: Document ID from open_document,' which implies a prerequisite but does not explain when deletion is appropriate or when another tool should be used instead.

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