purge_work_item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger is disclosed structurally; the description reinforces it with 'Permanently' and 'Irreversible'. It adds one genuine piece of non-annotated context, the archive-first precondition, but says nothing about what is actually lost (comments, attachments, links) or what happens on an idempotent repeat call.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility. No filler at all; the only reason it is not a 5 is that the precondition clause is slightly compressed into parentheses rather than stated as an explicit step.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, permanence, and precondition. It stops short of describing collateral effects of the purge or error behavior when the item is not archived, which would help an agent avoid a failed or destructive call.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'id' as a work item UUID. The description implies the id must reference an already-archived item, which is a small semantic addition beyond the schema, but no format or failure-mode detail is added.

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 ('Permanently delete'), a specific resource ('an archived work item'), and a distinguishing scope modifier ('permanently', 'archived') that separates it from a plain delete. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling delete_work_item without opening a 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?

Gives a hard precondition — the item must already be deleted/archived — which is exactly the gating condition an agent needs before calling. It does not explicitly name delete_work_item or restore_work_item as the alternative paths, so guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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