delete_work_item_property_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (delete) and the scope behavior (project_id omitted for workspace), but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, how errors are handled, or whether special permissions are required. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence followed by a terse Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every line adds value. There is no padding or repetition of schema types.

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 simple 3-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and parameter semantics well. It does not mention return values or error handling, but that is arguably less critical for a delete operation. Overall, a competent agent could successfully invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 has zero descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter with UUID references and clarifies the optional scope behavior for project_id. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an option from a work item property.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_work_item_property, delete_work_item_link) and from CRUD operations on entire properties.

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 is contextually clear: it deletes an option from a property. It also provides a concrete usage hint for the optional project_id: 'Omit for workspace scope.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that ambiguity is low.

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