swebsy_delete_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely succeeds: it says deletion is 'entirely,' clarifies the default-selection behavior, and explains the `targetPath` override sourced from `read_page`. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or error behavior, but 'remove entirely' implies permanent destructive action.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the key alternative to avoid, and selection/targeting behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler.

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?

Given only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers what is deleted, how deletion is scoped, and where `targetPath` comes from, with no critical invocation detail missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `summary` and `targetPath` well. The description adds little beyond the schema: `targetPath`'s source is already stated as 'exactly as returned by the most recent read_page call.' This matches the baseline expectation when structured schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a component from the current page entirely.' It also distinguishes itself from the alternative of emptying a section's contents, making the tool's purpose unmistakable versus deletion-by-clearing.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool instead of emptying a section's contents, because emptying leaves a stray blank div. It also explains when to use `targetPath` versus relying on the selected component, which fully clarifies invocation choice.

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