remove_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation can be previewed or, with confirmation, permanently removes the item, flagging the destructive nature and the confirmation gate. This adds meaningful context beyond the empty annotations, though it omits edge-case behaviors like no-match handling.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes both the preview and confirmation aspects. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core purpose and key safety behavior. However, it lacks guidance on usage relative to sibling tools and does not explicitly state that 'confirm' must be set to true for actual removal, which is a critical invocation detail. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description remains minimally sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It addresses the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role ('with confirmation'), adding semantic value. However, it does not elaborate on 'list_name' or 'item' beyond what the schema already implies, leaving some parameter behavior implicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('remove') with a clear resource ('grocery item') and adds a qualifier ('matching') to indicate selection criteria. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_item, complete_item, and move_item by explicitly stating the removal action and its destructive nature.

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 implies usage through the 'preview or permanently remove' phrasing, which hints that setting the 'confirm' parameter to true triggers the actual removal. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., complete_item for marking done) or provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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