delete_work_item

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions irreversibility, it does not disclose other critical behaviors like whether related data (e.g., comments, attachments, relations) is also deleted, whether cascading effects occur, or if there are any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core action and a critical warning. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail about post-deletion effects, confirmation requirements, or error scenarios. The schema fully covers parameter documentation, but for a high-stakes operation like delete, more behavioral context (e.g., cascading deletes, permission checks) would be expected for full completeness.

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%, meaning both parameters are described in the schema (workItemId as 'unique identifier, required parameter' and organizationId as 'Organization ID'). The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific information, but since the schema already fully documents them, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; however, the irreversibility note contextually emphasizes the importance of workItemId, giving it slight extra value, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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 tool deletes a work item, uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('work item'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_work_item' and 'create_work_item'. The irreversibility note adds important context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer it should be used when a work item needs to be permanently removed. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, such as cases where a work item should be deactivated instead of deleted, or any prerequisites (e.g., no associated children). It provides only implied usage context.

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