fenbs_delete_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the soft-delete model, exactly what is retained (number, comments, followers, links), what is irreversibly destroyed (files), the reversal path via fenbs_restore_item, and the permission requirement. It stops short of describing behavior on missing refs, idempotency, or the response shape, so not a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: identity, semantics, then preconditions. The 'Say what you are deleting and why' instruction is a behavioral nudge rather than tool mechanics, but it is brief and plausibly useful for an agent operating in a shared system.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical facts: reversibility boundary, permanent file loss, restore alternative, and permission need. Only error/edge-case behavior on invalid refs is absent.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Delete a task by ref' tells the agent that ref identifies the task, which is minimal meaning, but it adds no syntax, format, or example for the ref value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a task by ref') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling fenbs_restore_item by explaining this is a soft-delete that restore can reverse. An agent knows exactly which tool handles removal versus recovery.

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 names fenbs_restore_item as the undo path and adds a precondition ('Needs permission to change tasks'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or criteria for choosing deletion over flagging or archiving.

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