Delete zones

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the blast radius (nodes remain on the board) and that the deletion is a single undoable step reversible via undo_last_change. It does not mention what happens to links attached to the deleted zones.

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?

Two short, front-loaded clauses with no filler. The core action and its side effect come first, though the phrasing is clipped to the point of being terse.

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, non-idempotent bulk delete with no output schema, the description covers the key side effect and reversibility, which is the most important part. It omits what the caller passes (IDs), whether links to the zones are affected, and whether the operation can partially fail.

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% for the single required 'ids' parameter, and the description never mentions that deletion targets a list of zone IDs or any constraint such as the minimum of one item. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete zones') and immediately clarifies scope by noting that contained nodes survive, which differentiates it from the sibling delete_nodes. It stops short of explicitly naming delete_nodes as the contrasting alternative, but the effect on nodes makes the distinction inferable.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_nodes or delete_zone-like siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. 'One undoable step' describes a behavior, not a usage condition, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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