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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description goes far beyond that by explaining the exact consequences: unpublished items are permanently deleted, published items only disappear from the draft until the next publish purges them, and discardChanges can undo the delete. It also discloses the 'hasChanges' response field behavior. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 moderately long but each sentence contributes necessary information about the tool's nuanced behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. Although it could be slightly more concise, the density is justified by the complex state transitions it explains.

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Given the tool's complexity (behavior differs for published vs. unpublished items, integration with publish/discard, and response field), the description is thoroughly complete. It covers all relevant scenarios and even notes a rejection case, making it comprehensive for the agent to understand consequences without needing an output schema.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (questionBankId and questionBankItemId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning or clarification beyond what the schema states; it only repeats the intent of the delete. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Deletes one item from a question bank; does not affect the rest of the bank.' It specifies the exact resource (an item within a question bank) and distinguishes itself from deleting the entire bank (questionBank_delete). The verb 'deletes' is direct and 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including the behavioral differences for published vs. unpublished items, and how it interacts with questionBank_publish and questionBank_discardChanges. It also mentions a rejection case (public template id) and points to an alternative tool (questionBank_templateList). This is clear operational context that helps the agent decide when to invoke it.

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