review_submission_items__delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds the timing constraint ('has not been handed to Apple yet'). This is useful but does not go beyond what the annotations and basic operation imply.

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?

A single clear sentence, directly stated, plus the endpoint for reference. No filler or redundant information.

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 a simple single-parameter delete operation with annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is sufficiently complete. It includes the key precondition and clear object of the operation. A small gap is lack of explicit mention of the effects after deletion, but this is minor.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a description ('ID from the matching list call'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the schema carries the explanatory burden, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('take one item back out') with a clear resource ('submission item') and states the scope ('from a submission that has not been handed to Apple yet'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_submission_items__create and review_submission_items__update.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to remove an item from a submission before it has been handed to Apple. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the precondition is clearly stated.

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