Delete Module Item

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds crucial behavior beyond them: for ExternalUrl, ExternalTool and SubHeader items the content itself is deleted, while for Assignment, Page, Quiz, File and Discussion items only the link is removed and the underlying content survives. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure an agent needs before calling 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?

Two compact sentences plus a one-clause recovery hint. The core action is front-loaded, the critical distinction follows immediately, and every sentence 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 destructive module-item deletion with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral nuance: which item types lose content versus only a link, and how to recover via create_module_item. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 course_id, module_id and item_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds item-type behavior but no additional syntax, format, or constraint details for the parameters themselves, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('an item from a module'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_module_item by naming the re-add alternative. The type-dependent outcome further sharpens what 'remove' means here.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it and what happens by item type, and names create_module_item for re-adding. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., prefer update_module_item to modify rather than remove), so it falls short of 5.

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