delete_work_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 behavioral traits. It states the action is 'Delete' but gives no information about permanence, cascading effects on related entities (e.g., attachments, comments), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a destructive operation, and the description is too sparse to prepare an agent for its consequences.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the operation followed by a clear arg list. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or repeated information. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple delete operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, deleted object, or empty response). It also lacks information about error conditions (e.g., non-existent work_item_id). The 2-parameter schema is straightforward, but the description is insufficient for an agent to fully predict the tool's behavior and output.

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 schema merely lists project_id and work_item_id as strings with no descriptions. The description adds that they are UUIDs and specifies which ID refers to the project and which to the work item. This is valuable semantic information beyond the schema, though it doesn't elaborate on optionality (which is already defined by the schema's required list).

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 a work item') and identifies the resource being acted on. The 'by ID' qualifier adds necessary scoping, and the parameter list clarifies that both project and work item IDs are needed. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_work_item_attachment, delete_work_item_comment) that target different sub-resources.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied that you would use this to delete a work item, there is no mention of when not to use it (e.g., for deleting attachments or comments, use a different tool). The presence of many sibling delete tools makes this lack of differentiation a clear gap.

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