delete_item

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint: true. The description adds critical behavioral details: 'PERMANENTLY', 'There is no undo', 'including its attachments', and the need for a confirming input equal to the item's exact name. This goes well beyond the annotation and warns about cascade effects and irreversibility.

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 front-loads the action and consequence. Every phrase adds value: the permanence, the scope (attachments), the confirm requirement, and the absence of undo. No filler words.

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 the tool's destructive nature, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted, the caveat about attachments, the confirmation requirement, and irreversibility. There is no need for return-value details. It is complete for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that `identifier` can be an assetId, alias field, or exact name, and that `confirm` must equal the item's exact name. This adds meaningful context not present in the schema, though it leaves some ambiguity about how the identifier is interpreted.

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 starts with 'PERMANENTLY delete an item' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools for locations, tags, and attachments by noting 'including its attachments'. This makes the tool's scope 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 implies when to use this tool by stating it deletes an item and its attachments, effectively covering the use case for deleting an entire item. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes it clear. The confirm requirement is a useful invocation condition.

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