Delete a registered component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Permanently remove,' 'Destructive — no undo,' and 'Returns 404 if the component doesn't exist,' fully exposing the destructive nature and error behavior.

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 two sentences, each with dense information: the first defines the action and resource; the second covers the use case, error behavior, and destructive warning. No filler or redundancy that detracts from clarity.

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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, permanence, and error behavior. It even explains what a 'component' is and how to find the id. This is fully sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 a detailed description for the id parameter ('Returned by register_component and listed under a page's components'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Permanently remove' with the specific resource 'registered component (editable HTML chunk) from the project,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_content or delete_page. The parenthetical clarifies what a component is, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'Use when retiring a section that's no longer on the page.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which prevents a 5, but the context is strong enough to guide correct selection.

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