delete_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares irreversibility, mandates user confirmation before bulk/whole-list deletion, explains that confirmName and listName drive a permission prompt and are not sent to the API, and describes the return shape. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the destructive permanence warning, then sequencing and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the "clear bought items" instruction is slightly clause-heavy and could be tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating "Returns the deleted items in get_items format." Combined with the confirmation and ID-provenance guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this destructive tool safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a cross-parameter rule not present in the schema: "Always pass confirmName alongside each itemId," plus the provenance rule for itemIds. These elevate it above the schema-only baseline, though the per-field nuances of confirmName formatting remain schema-side.

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 with scope: "Permanently delete items from a list; this can't be undone." It also explicitly distinguishes itself from edit_items (ticking off) and implicitly from delete_list, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers ("added by mistake, no longer needed", "asks to clear bought items - then delete only the checked ones"), a when-not-to-use alternative ("To mark something as bought, tick it off with edit_items instead"), and a prerequisite step ("Get itemIds from get_items"). Nothing is left to inference.

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