delete_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive mutation) but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether deletions are permanent, require specific permissions, have rate limits, or what happens to associated tasks. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral consequences, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a deletion operation and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 description adds some semantic context by explaining that either 'id' or 'name' can identify targets, with 'id' being preferred. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (an array of objects with id/name properties), the description doesn't explain the array structure, whether multiple sections can be deleted at once, or how name matching works. It provides basic guidance but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('sections in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_projects' or 'delete_tasks' by specifying sections. However, it doesn't explicitly mention whether this deletes single or multiple sections, which would make it a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project context), consequences (e.g., tasks in deleted sections), or when to choose between 'delete_sections' and other deletion tools like 'delete_projects' or 'delete_tasks'. The only usage hint is about parameter identification, which is more about parameters than tool selection.

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