delete_module_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose a key non-destructive trait (does not delete underlying content), but it omits other important behavioral details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or the confirm_title safety check. This is useful but incomplete behavioral transparency.

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 long and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds crucial clarifying context without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the low operational complexity (a simple delete operation), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the core action and the key distinction from module deletion. The only minor gap is not mentioning the confirmation mechanism, but this is already documented in the schema, so the description is sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four required parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it does not elaborate on how to obtain item_id, how confirm_title works, or any parameter-specific nuances. Thus, the description adds no value beyond the schema, which is already comprehensive.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an item from a module.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_module by explicitly clarifying that it 'only removes the module entry — the underlying assignment/page/file is not deleted.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 usage context: it says the tool only removes the module entry, not the underlying content, which implies when to use it (to unlink an item) and when not to use it (to delete underlying content). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct 'use X instead' recommendation, so it falls short of a 5.

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