delete_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses side effects like removal of media/chart/embedded-workbook parts when unreferenced, backup rotation semantics, hyperlink unwrapping, bookmark text retention, and refusal conditions. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond the schema.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence carries operational information. A structured list would improve scannability, but the density is justified given the variety of element types and edge cases.

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 complex multi-type deletion tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this description is remarkably complete: addressing rules, side effects, exclusions, backup behavior, and refusal conditions are all covered. The existing output schema handles return-value details, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and the description compensates by mapping type-specific addressing: list_elements index for equations/images/charts, read order for reference_list, name for bookmarks, target URL in id for hyperlinks, location for captions, and tag/index for content controls. It also explains backup=False and the optional nature of id/location.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Delete one document element that has no lifecycle tool of its own.' It enumerates the accepted element types and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by listing notes/comments/sources/tables/paragraphs as handled elsewhere.

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 explicitly names alternatives and boundaries: elements with lifecycle tools 'stay there' and are routed to manage_note, manage_comment, manage_source, delete_table, and delete_paragraphs. It also communicates refusal conditions such as documents open in Word and locked content controls, so an agent can choose another tool or avoid invalid calls.

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