cosmosdb_delete_item

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that 'THIS IS DESTRUCTIVE — the item cannot be recovered after deletion,' which is a key behavioral trait. It does not, however, mention potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletes) or authentication/rate limit considerations, but the core destructive behavior is well-covered.

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 extremely concise: two key sentences stating purpose and requirement, plus a critical warning. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the action and immediate usage constraints.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters and is destructive. While the output schema exists (so return values are not needed in description), the description omits guidance on how to obtain required identifiers (e.g., item_id and partition_key) or error behavior. It adequately covers the irreversibility but lacks completeness for a complex operation.

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 0%, so the description should add meaning for all parameters. It only mentions 'item_id' and 'partition_key,' leaving 'account,' 'database,' and 'container' completely unexplained. The schema itself provides titles but no descriptions, so the agent gets no additional context beyond the parameter names.

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 'Delete an item from a Cosmos DB container.' It uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('item'), making the action unambiguous. Among siblings like 'read_item' and 'upsert_item', this tool's purpose is distinct and immediately understandable.

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 emphasizes that both 'item_id' and 'partition_key' are required, which is critical for correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. update) or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The destructive nature is clearly flagged, but contextual usage hints from sibling names are indirect.

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