delete_project_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (removes from project, no timeline effect) but lacks details on permissions, undo capability, or whether the deletion is permanent. Basic behavioral info is present but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, no fluff. Every word serves a purpose: defines action, scope, and exception. Highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it deletes and what it preserves. Could mention irreversibility, but overall adequate.

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 parameter 'item_id' has a schema description ('Node ID or name'), but the description adds value by clarifying the range of items (clip, bin, etc.). This helps the agent understand what constitutes a valid project item, going beyond the schema alone.

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 action ('Delete'), the target ('project item'), and provides examples ('clip, bin, etc.'). It also distinguishes where the deletion occurs ('from the project panel') and clarifies the scope of effect ('does not affect timeline instances'). This clearly differentiates it from similar tools like 'remove_from_timeline'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to delete from project panel) and what it does not do ('does not affect timeline instances'). While it does not mention specific sibling tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, the scope limitation provides sufficient guidance for an agent to understand its appropriate context.

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