shape_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. 'Delete' signals a destructive mutation, but it says nothing about whether the deletion can be undone, whether it applies to grouped/anchored objects, what happens on an invalid index, or whether any confirmation is required. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the source of the missing detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description omits index semantics, undo/reversibility, and error behavior. An agent can guess the call shape but not the consequences.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (document_id only). The description mentions 'from a page' but never explains that pageIndex and itemIndex are 0-based positional references, which is the key ambiguity an agent faces when choosing indices. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (shape) scoped to a page, which clearly separates it from siblings like shape_create, shape_list, and shape_modify. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous on its own.

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 shape_modify or undo/redo, no mention of prerequisites, and no note that the operation is likely irreversible or recoverable via undo. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

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