history_delete_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is irreversible ("no history restore tool") and delimits blast radius ("removes history records, not the open tab, bookmarks or cookies"). It does not state whether a confirmation is required or how deletion interacts with an in-flight sync/other devices, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences/paragraphs, front-loaded with the destructive action and scope, then prerequisites and alternatives. No filler; every sentence adds a constraint or a routing rule.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers irreversibility, scope boundaries, prerequisites, ID locality, and alternatives — everything needed to call it 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 only 50% — profile_id has no schema description — but the description compensates by stating it is required, where to obtain it (profiles_list), and that IDs are profile-local and must not be reused elsewhere. It also clarifies url semantics as an exact-match single URL rather than a pattern.

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 precise scope: "Delete all history visits for one exact URL in this profile." The word "exact" plus "history visits" distinguishes it from bookmarks_delete and tabs_close without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 explicit routing: use history_query to find the URL first, use tabs_close if the goal is to close a page instead, and notes no restore tool exists. It names the alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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