common-remove-archive-item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful bit beyond that: 'permanently', which clarifies the removal is irreversible. It says nothing about required permissions, whether a version/clone remains, or the response.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though so terse for a four-parameter destructive operation that the brevity shades into under-specification.

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 tool with no output schema and annotation-covered safety, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves open whether the operation targets a single itemId or every item in the archive, and what identity and database actually constrain, which an agent needs in order 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including archive, database, and identity. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies; notably it implies a bulk 'items' scope while itemId is an optional single-item parameter, but it never resolves that.

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 and resource ('Removes items permanently from the specified archive'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling common-restore-archive-item and common-get-archive-item. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or explain the plural-vs-single-item scope, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. item must already be archived), and no mention of the inverse operation common-restore-archive-item that an agent should consider instead when the goal is reversible. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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