delete_toc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses auto-backup behavior with .ks4w-backups prev/anchor slots, the nuance that backup=False only skips rotation, atomic validated saves, and refusal when documents are open in Word. This is exemplary transparency for a destructive mutation tool.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by safety and backup behavior. Every clause earns its place, packing significant semantic and behavioral information compactly.

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 description covers the operation's core mechanics (indexing via read_toc), side effects (backup, atomic save), parameter nuances, and a key refusal condition (open in Word). Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed. This is complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 explains the 'which' parameter as an index into read_toc's tocs list and clarifies the 'backup' parameter's behavior with 'backup=False skips rotation only'. The 'file_path' parameter is self-evident from context and the schema's required field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one TOC-family field by index'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_source, delete_table, and delete_columns. The reference to 'read_toc's tocs list order' further anchors what is deleted and how the target is identified.

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 implies a prerequisite: the caller should obtain the index from read_toc's tocs list before invoking delete_toc. This gives clear contextual guidance for using the tool. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the read_toc dependency is a meaningful usage signal.

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