delete_element

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds value beyond these by specifying that element deletion cascades incident connections while connection deletion preserves endpoints. This is crucial context not present in annotations. 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs the two modes and their effects efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It explains the two deletion modes and their different implications. Minor omission: it does not explicitly state what happens to the endpoints of incident connections when deleting an element (beyond implying they are cascaded), which could be clarified. Overall, adequate for an agent to call 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 describes elementId as 'ID of the element to delete' with 100% coverage, but the tool description reveals that elementId can also refer to a connection, adding meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that the ID serves double duty. However, it does not specify how an agent can distinguish an element ID from a connection ID, which is a minor gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an element or a connection'), and concisely differentiates the two modes with their distinct effects. It is clear what the tool does overall, though it does not explain how it determines which mode applies (which is left to the parameter value).

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 implicit usage guidance by explaining that it can delete either an element (cascading incident connections) or a connection (preserving endpoints), which helps an agent choose the appropriate action. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (no other element-deletion tool exists among siblings) or provide conditions for exclusion. The guidance is functional but not explicit about scenarios where deletion should not be used.

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