delete_library_sections_by_section_id

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

The annotations already cover destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the async_ parameter: setting it returns an activity representing the deletion process, while omitting it makes the request return only after deletion completes. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action appears first, followed by the endpoint and parameter explanations. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the endpoint, both parameters, and the async behavior. It does not compare against closely-related sibling delete operations or call out irreversibility explicitly, but the destructiveHint annotation and output schema mitigate those omissions.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies section_id as the section identifier and gives a genuinely useful behavioral explanation of async_, including what happens when it is set versus unset. It could specify accepted async_ string values more explicitly, but the provided semantics are strong.

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 the direct, specific action 'Delete a library section' and reinforces it with the endpoint DELETE /library/sections/{sectionId}. This clearly identifies the resource and operation, and the endpoint makes it distinguishable from sibling tools that delete sub-resources within a section.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deleting a collection, indexes, or intros within a library section. The description states the operation but provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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