delete_history_items

Does 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. However, it simply restates the tool's purpose without disclosing important traits such as irreversibility, potential side effects on running jobs, or whether deletion is permanent. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about when to use it, what 'history' means, or the consequences of deletion. It does not benefit from annotations to fill gaps, making it a bare-minimum viable description.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter (prompt_ids) as a comma-separated list of prompt IDs, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.

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's function: 'Delete specific items from ComfyUI execution history.' It uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('ComfyUI execution history'), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_queue_items and clear_queue by focusing on history items rather than queue items.

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 usage for selective deletion from history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_queue or delete_queue_items. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the scope based on the tool name and sibling context.

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