Item Delete

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load and does so well: it declares the operation destructive, permanent, and enumerates the collateral scope (tags, relations, attachments). It does not cover authorization/connection scoping, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 destructive action and its scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clearly labeled Use quando / Retorna / Exemplo / Notas sections. Every line carries information and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still names the return shape; destruction scope, routing alternative, and usage condition are all covered for a simple 2-parameter delete. The unresolved connection_id semantics is the only real gap.

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% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only shows item_id inside an example string and says nothing about connection_id, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource (remove/delete an item) and precisely scopes what is removed: tags, relations and attachments. Marks it as destructive, which immediately distinguishes it from the retire-with-history path offered by item_save.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use quando' clause (item is wrong and no history needs preserving) plus a 'Notas' section naming the alternative (item_save with status=deprecated or a supersedes relation) and the condition that selects it. When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all present.

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