delete_widget

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the destructive nature. The description adds a permission requirement (write permission), which is useful operational context not in annotations. However, it does not disclose consequences like irreversibility or cascading effects, which are partially implied by destructiveHint.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a brief permission note. There is no unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an agent 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?

For a simple delete operation with two well-described parameters, the description is nearly complete. Annotations cover the destructive and read-only aspects, and the description adds permission context. It does not mention idempotency, but the idempotentHint annotation already signals that. No return format is specified, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (widget_id and dashboard_id), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so it relies on the schema for parameter semantics.

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), the resource (widget), and the context (from a dashboard). It is not a tautology and distinguishes the widget deletion from other delete operations by specifying the resource. The permission note adds relevant scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a widget needs to be removed from a dashboard) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like add_widget or update_widget. It mentions the permission requirement, which is a prerequisite but not a comparison to sibling tools.

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