delete_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies destructive mutation, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether related records are affected, or whether special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 concise and to the point, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It earns a middle score because there is no wasted text, yet the brevity omits essential detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the tool requires more context than a one-sentence description provides. The description is complete only for the most trivial understanding of the operation and lacks details about response behavior, side effects, or parameter semantics.

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%, and the description names neither parameter. The schema shows two numbers (id and campaignId) but the description does not explain that both are required or clarify the relationship between them (e.g., campaignId scopes the item). Because coverage is zero and the description adds nothing, it fails to compensate.

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 clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('existing item'), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it does not distinguish this from delete_character, delete_location, or other delete_* siblings, and 'item' could be ambiguous without the sibling list context. It is minimally adequate but lacks specificity about which sibling it complements.

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 versus alternatives like delete_character or delete_note. The description simply states what it does without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and resource type.

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