delete_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait — deletion is permanent — which is valuable since destructiveHint is absent. But 'Use with caution' is vague, and it says nothing about required permissions, whether attached connectors or child elements are also removed, or error behavior.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and the permanence warning lands early. 'Use with caution' is the one sentence that adds little beyond hedging, but overall the text is efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it does, permanence, when to use it). It still omits permission requirements and any cascade/side-effect details an agent should know before invoking an irreversible delete.

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% (both item_id and board_id documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. 'Requires item ID' merely restates the required field and adds no format, sourcing, or ID-acquisition guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Deletes an item from the board') and adds the important qualifier 'permanently'. It does not name the sibling it most closely resembles, delete_mindmap_node, so the agent must infer scope from the word 'item' alone.

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?

'Use this to clean up placeholder content or remove outdated items' gives concrete usage contexts, which is better than none. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., delete_mindmap_node for mindmap nodes) and no prerequisites beyond the required item ID.

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