delete_households_shopping_items_by_itemRemove a specific item from a household shopping list using its unique ID. Solves the problem of unwanted or incorrect list entries quickly.
Delete One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails entirely—no mention that this is a destructive operation, no idempotency behavior, no cascade effects, no error conditions, no authorization requirements. The description adds nothing beyond the tool name.
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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently written. There is no front-loaded useful information; the phrase 'Delete One' contains almost no actionable content for an agent.
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?
Despite having an output schema and a simple parameter set, the description is inadequate. For a destructive endpoint with no annotations, the agent needs to know deletion semantics, whether the deletion is scoped to a household, and what happens on missing or invalid item_id. The one-line description leaves the agent to infer everything from the tool name.
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 0% and the description provides zero parameter explanations. The required item_id parameter format is only implied by the schema's uuid type; the optional accept-language parameter is completely unexplained. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'Delete One' is nearly tautological and fails to identify the resource being deleted. The verb is clear ('Delete') but the object 'One' is ambiguous, requiring the agent to parse the tool name for meaning. It doesn't distinguish this from the many other delete_* sibling tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like delete_households_shopping_items and delete_households_shopping_lists_by_item, an agent has no context about scope, prerequisites, or which deletion endpoint is appropriate. The description offers no use-case context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.