delete_panel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a crucial behavioral trait: 'This cannot be undone.' It does not, however, mention permissions, side effects on related data, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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: one sentence for the action, one sentence for irreversibility, and a clean Args list. All content is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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 string parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and destructive nature. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but the minimal complexity means the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema provides only property names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description's Args section adds meaning by explaining that dashboard_id is the owning dashboard and panel_id is the target panel, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Delete a panel from a dashboard', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_dashboard and add_panel by focusing on panels rather than the dashboard itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation name and description: if you need to delete a panel, use this tool. However, there is no explicit mention of alternative tools (e.g., delete_dashboard for dashboards) or when not to use this tool, leaving the guidance implicit.

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