delete_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'soft delete,' which implies the item is marked as deleted rather than permanently removed, adding useful context beyond the basic 'delete' action. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or effects on related data (e.g., sales or batches), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Delete') and includes the critical 'soft delete' qualification. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations or output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the deletion type but omits details on return values, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that modifies data, more context would be helpful, but it meets basic requirements.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('an inventory item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_item' or 'void_sale' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential destructive operations without the 'soft delete' clarification being more prominent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_item' for status changes or 'void_sale' for transaction reversals. It mentions 'soft delete' but doesn't explain implications or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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