element_delete

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions the return status (204), the necessity of force=true, and a recommendation to verify the id. This is valuable but could include more about error handling or idempotency.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing essential information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and schema, the description covers key points: HTTP method, return code, force requirement, and prerequisite. It lacks error scenarios or side effects, but for a destructive delete tool, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The description reinforces the element_id parameter by suggesting to run elements_list first, but does not add new information about the 'site' parameter. The input schema already covers force and element_id adequately, so the description's contribution is marginal.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete an element'), specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, and distinguishes it from other delete tools by focusing on elements. It provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage instructions: requires force=true, and suggests running elements_list first to confirm the id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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