remove_shopping_list_items

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. It reveals that this is a soft delete (not a hard delete), that restore_shopping_list_items undoes it, and that removed lines cannot be listed afterward. This is essential behavioral context that an agent needs to make informed decisions, going well beyond a generic 'removes items' statement.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Remove lines from the shopping list') and then adds the essential caveats about soft deletion and the restore path. There is no wasted wording; every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter soft-delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the undo mechanism, the visibility limitation, and the parameter guidance via the schema. Nothing essential is missing. The description adequately informs the agent how to call it correctly and what to expect behaviorally.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter item_ids, including a clear description: 'The item_ids array from get_shopping_list.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall context. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate with extra detail.

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: 'Remove lines from the shopping list.' It explicitly identifies this as a soft delete and names the sibling restore_shopping_list_items that undoes it, making it distinct from other shopping list tools like add_shopping_list_items or update_shopping_list_items. The verb, resource, and distinguishing characteristic are all present.

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 provides explicit guidance: it says when to use the tool (to remove lines) and gives a critical precaution—because removed lines cannot be listed, keep item_ids if undo might be needed. It also names the alternative restore_shopping_list_items that undoes the operation. This is strong, actionable guidance for an agent.

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