Remove a roadmap 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 and delivers: it reveals that the default invocation is non-destructive ('nothing is deleted and only the impact is reported') and that deleting a transition state detaches its referenced work packages. This covers the critical safety and cascade behavior an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool; only reversibility and permission requirements are left unstated.

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 two compact bilingual sentences ordered logically: core purpose first, then the default safety behavior, then the cascade consequence. There is no filler, and the bilingual duplication is justified by the lang parameter supporting ja/en/both, though it does roughly double the length.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with 100% schema documentation and no nested objects, the description covers what is deleted, the safety default, and the side effect on work packages — everything essential to invoke it correctly. Since no output schema exists, a sketch of the impact report's return shape would improve it, and an explicit routing note against delete_engagement is missing, but these are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the confirm=false behavior from the reverse direction (impact-only return), clarifies that id targets either a transition state or a work package, and ties the deletion to the 'saved engagement' context. This enriches the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Delete a transition state or work package from the saved engagement' — and explicitly names both deletable entity types. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_transition_state, add_work_package, get_roadmap, and the broader delete_engagement, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 a safe usage workflow: run with the default confirm=false to get an impact report before actually deleting, and it notes the detach side effect. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool (e.g., no pointer to delete_engagement for whole-engagement removal), so usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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