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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'delete' is consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that deleting the last item is permitted (form can be empty), and clarifies that it handles non-question entities (page breaks, display blocks). This transparency about edge cases exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. It efficiently packs key information: the primary purpose, the range of deletable item types, and an important edge rule (deleting the last one). No redundant words or irrelevant details; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple delete operation with only two well-described parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral gaps: what can be deleted and the rule about the last item. It would be improved by mentioning any side effects or cascading behavior, but for this tool's simplicity the coverage is nearly complete.

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 both parameters (formId and code) are already documented. The description's phrase 'by code' reinforces the code parameter but adds no new semantics not present in the schema. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a precise verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a single item from a form'), and enumerates the allowed item types (question, page break, display block). It clearly separates this tool from delete_form and delete_form_translation by scoping to individual components. The addition of the 'last one is allowed' rule further clarifies the exact scope.

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 implies usage by specifying what it deletes, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete_form or state when to choose this over other deletion tools. The context (sibling names) makes the distinction obvious, but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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