azure_delete_work_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic deletion action without mentioning whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the work item does not exist. 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though it could include more context without becoming bloated. The front-loaded verb 'Deleta' immediately conveys the action.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified for a mutation tool. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, or any side effects. For a delete operation, one might expect at least a note on permanence or failure modes. The simplicity of the tool (one parameter) is not enough to excuse the lack of context.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'ID do work item a deletar', which is already clear. The description does not compensate or add nuance.

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 'Deleta um work item' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (work item), making the action unambiguous. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like create, update, and get by its destructive nature, so the purpose is clear even without explicit comparison.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or exclude cases like soft-delete. With many sibling tools, some usage context would be expected but is entirely absent.

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