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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description appropriately focuses on additional behavior: the types of items supported (including page breaks and display blocks) and the rule that deleting the last item is allowed. This adds context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 written sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, the item types are listed, and the edge case (empty shell) is stated. Every word 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 deletion tool with an output schema available, the description covers the scope of deletion, supporting item types, and the edge case of empty forms. It does not discuss error handling (e.g., missing code) but that is typically implicit. Overall, sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters (formId, code), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds the hint that deletion is 'by code' (implying code is the unique identifier), which is a minor clarification but does not expand on format or constraints. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a single item from a form by code') and clearly enumerates item types (question, page break, display block). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_question, insert_question, and delete_form by scope (single item vs whole form).

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 implicitly defines usage by specifying exactly what it deletes and that deleting the last item produces an empty form. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scoping to single items differentiates it from form-level deletion. Clear context, though no explicit exclusions.

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