delete_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that deletion is permanent and bypasses trash, which conveys irreversibility and destructive intent. It does not detail side effects like cascading deletion or permission requirements, but the central behavioral risk is clearly disclosed.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the most important facts: permanent deletion, the identifying fields, and the bypassing-trash behavior. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or filler.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the required identifiers, and the irreversible nature of the operation. The confirm parameter is already documented in the schema, so its absence from the description is not a gap. Minor details like side effects on attachments are not covered, but the core invocation context is complete enough.

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 100%: all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description merely echoes 'share ID' and 'item ID' without adding new semantic detail, so it does not go beyond the structured information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('delete'), a concrete resource ('item'), and the mechanism ('by share ID and item ID'). The phrase 'bypassing trash' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like trash_item and untrash_item. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is the permanent, irreversible deletion path rather than a soft delete to trash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but 'permanently' and 'bypassing trash' give enough contextual signal to route the agent toward or away from this tool alongside sibling names.

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