Remove style anchor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important blast-radius context: 'Previously saved writing pieces remain,' and states the return shape: 'Returns the selected ID and whether it was removed.' It does not mention auth/undo details, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is strong.

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?

Four short sentences with no waste. The core action and usage context are front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance and return/effect details.

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 tool with annotations, full schema coverage, no required params, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, sequencing, parameter choice, blast radius, and return values.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's alias behavior and precedence ('anchor_id takes precedence'), but adds little beyond what the schema already documents for both parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a saved writing-style reference.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_style_anchors and add_style_anchor by naming both siblings and their roles.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after list_style_anchors identifies the reference.' It also names the replacement path: 'use add_style_anchor to save a replacement.' The alternative and sequencing are unambiguous.

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