delete_qa_item

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that deletion also affects 'related script files', a significant side effect beyond just the QA item. It also reveals the constraint about Excel-registered items and the support for single/batch modes. However, it leaves out details like irreversibility, permissions, or return values, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and modes, the second states the important limitation. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant words, earning a high score.

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 delete tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers scope, supported modes, and the critical Excel restriction. Given no annotations, it effectively carries the necessary context for an agent to use the tool safely, though it could mention prerequisites like item existence.

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?

The schema already fully documents item_id and item_ids with clear Korean descriptions (100% coverage). The description restates the single/batch distinction but adds no new information about parameter types, constraints, or mutual exclusivity beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool deletes QA items and related script files, with specific verb '삭제' (delete) and resource '검수 항목' (QA item). It also distinguishes from siblings by covering both single and batch deletion, and complements other QA tools like list/update/run. This makes it 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 explicitly provides a when-not-to-use rule: items registered in data/sheets/ Excel cannot be deleted directly and must be removed via Excel. This exclusion guides the agent to choose an alternative workflow for Excel-registered items, and supports both single and batch cases.

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