delete_global_section

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds the crucial blast radius (the node is removed from every page source, not just one page) and that the save is atomic. It also explains the safe default of preview mode, which an agent needs to avoid accidental mass deletion.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded and the safety workflow second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the main risks: cascade scope, atomicity, and preview-first default. It omits whether the operation is reversible/undoable and any permission prerequisites, which would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds concrete meaning to dry_run by explaining what the preview actually returns (which pages would change) and that false performs the atomic save. section_id gets no extra detail beyond the schema's pointer to list_global_sections.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (global section, clarified as Header/Footer/block) plus the cascading scope 'remove its node from every page source'. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like delete_page and delete_global_source, which operate on different resource types.

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?

Clearly documents the intended two-step workflow: dry_run=true (default) previews which pages change, dry_run=false commits the delete. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives (e.g., removing a section via page-level edits), so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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