delete_item

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the obvious destructive action. It does not disclose irreversibility, cascading effects, authorization needs, or return behavior, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a 5; but as a simple, clear sentence it earns a solid score.

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 delete tool with complete schema, the description is minimally viable. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral context, it lacks the additional detail needed for full completeness (e.g., permanence, error handling, return values).

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% with both parameters (resource, item_id) described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, 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 'Delete an item from Business Central' clearly identifies the action (delete), the resource (item), and the system. It distinguishes from sibling tools because there is no other delete tool; however, it is somewhat generic and just restates the name with minimal extra context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, when a soft-delete might be preferred, or any prerequisites. This fails to direct the agent away from inappropriate use.

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