Remove estimate items

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the call is atomic (an unknown item_id aborts before any deletion) and it returns the new estimate total. It does not mention partial-failure nuances or limits, but the key traits are disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the failure semantics, then the state prerequisite. No filler; the only redundancy is repeating the item_id-from-get_estimate hint already in the schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: valid inputs, atomicity/abort behavior, the returned value (new estimate total), and the state guard with its workaround.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the item_ids provenance that the schema already states. It adds only the constraint that item_ids must currently belong to the estimate, which is a modest addition over the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (deletes) and resource scope (line items on an estimate), which cleanly separates it from delete_estimate and from add_estimate_items. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives the precondition explicitly (estimate must be in 'estimating' state), names the states that cause refusal (pending_approval, approved, completed), and routes the agent to update_estimate as the remediation. It also points to get_estimate as the source of valid item_ids.

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