dashy_delete_item

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

The description discloses the destructive nature (delete) and the identification method (index or exact title), but it does not add context beyond what the destructiveHint annotation already conveys. It lacks information about permanence, error handling, or whether the action is idempotent, making it acceptable but not enhanced.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, the resource type, and the identification method for both item and section.

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 description covers the core purpose and identification logic, but it omits details about the 'filename' parameter and any behavioral nuances like what happens if the item/section does not exist. While the output schema exists, the description itself leaves gaps for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that iid refers to the item by index or exact title and sid refers to the section by index or exact name. However, it does not explicitly map these to parameter names or explain the 'filename' parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action (delete) and the resource (an item/tile), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashy_delete_section by specifying 'item (tile)' and its scope within a section. The phrase 'by index or exact title, within a section by index or exact name' precisely defines the operation.

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 by showing how to identify the item and section, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dashy_update_item or dashy_delete_section. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it meets the 'implied usage' level rather than providing explicit guidance.

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