Permanently delete an item from a Bring! shopping list without marking it as purchased. Specify the list UUID and item name to remove it entirely.
Completely remove an item from a shopping list (without marking as purchased).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_name | Yes | Name of the item to remove | |
| list_uuid | Yes | UUID of the shopping list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and "completely remove" does usefully signal an irreversible destructive operation distinct from soft completion. However, it omits what an agent needs to know before calling a destructive tool: required permissions, behavior when the item is not found, and whether any undo exists.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the differentiating clause follows immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 two-parameter tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the essentials are covered. Still, for a destructive operation with no annotations, it should say more about failure modes (item not found, invalid UUID) and confirm the removal is permanent and unscoped to quantity.
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 required parameters (item_name, list_uuid) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or matching semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("remove an item") scoped to a shopping list, which is unambiguous. The parenthetical "(without marking as purchased)" implicitly carves out the distinction from bring_complete_item, though it does not name that sibling outright.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for permanent deletion rather than purchase-marking, thanks to the parenthetical. There is no explicit "use this when..." statement, no mention of when to prefer bring_complete_item, and no prerequisites such as needing the list to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.