element_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the need for force=true (without it the call is rejected), the response code (204), and the prerequisite to confirm the id. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each conveying essential information: what it does, the force requirement, and a prerequisite. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 delete tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the action, return code, mandatory flag, and prerequisite verification. This provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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 coverage is 67% with descriptions for element_id and force. The description reinforces the force parameter's requirement ('requires force=true') and echoes the need to get the id from elements_list, adding clarity. The site parameter lacks extra context, but overall the description enhances parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the action (Delete an element), the HTTP method and endpoint, the expected response (204), and key requirements (force=true). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like article_delete or element_update.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (to delete an element) and a prerequisite (run elements_list first to confirm the id). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a delete operation.

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