Удалить пункт чек-листа

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates 'delete'. It does not disclose that the operation is irreversible, whether permissions or card access are required, whether item ordering is renumbered, or what happens when an ID is invalid — all critical for a destructive tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 destructive, three-ID mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out nearly everything an agent needs: irreversibility, failure modes for stale IDs, and any confirmation of effect. The schema covers parameters, but behavior is essentially undocumented.

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%, with all three IDs (card_id, checklist_id, item_id) documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the required hierarchy or ID semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Удаляет пункт чек-листа карточки' — deletes a card's checklist item), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sibling mutation tools such as kaiten_update_checklist_item or kaiten_delete_card, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus kaiten_update_checklist_item (to clear content) or kaiten_add_checklist_item, and no mention of prerequisites such as the parent checklist needing to exist. The only implied usage comes from the verb itself.

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