Permanently Delete Item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility, the confirmation conflict, cascading to child rows, and the condition that it only works on soft-deleted items. This is comprehensive 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 enough, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose due to detailed explanation of confirmation flow, but acceptable.

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 the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, confirmation flow, cascading behavior, and alternatives. It is complete for the agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirmation flow and the behavior of resolution parameter. It does not add new semantics to entity_type or entity_id beyond the schema, but the context of the confirmation mechanism is helpful.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: permanently delete a soft-deleted item, skipping the 30-day recovery window. It uses specific verbs ('purge', 'delete') and identifies the resource ('soft-deleted item'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'restore_item'.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use: only on already soft-deleted items. It says 'it refuses items that are still active'. It explains the confirmation conflict on first call and how to resolve. It also points to restore_item for recovery.

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