Remove shopping list items

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

The description clearly states the tool is destructive ('for good', 'requires confirmation'), which aligns with the annotations 'destructiveHint: true' and 'readOnlyHint: false'. The description adds significant value by explaining the confirmation token flow that the annotations do not cover. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: first states the action, second provides an alternative, third explains the required workflow. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded. This is a model of concise, structured documentation for a tool.

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 has no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The destructive nature is clear, the two-step confirmation process is explained, and the alternative sibling tool is mentioned. For a list deletion tool with two parameters, this description is complete enough for an AI agent to use it correctly and safely.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The first parameter description references the sibling tool 'get_shopping_list' for source of UUIDs, which adds context. The second parameter description explains the confirmation protocol. The description itself generally adds minimal extra parameter details beyond further clarifying the confirmation flow, keeping the score high but not a 5 since the schema already does a good job.

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 uses a specific verb ('removes') and a clear resource ('shopping list items'), with a definitive adverb ('for good') that establishes the permanent nature. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_shopping_list_items' by contrasting the 'removes' vs. 'checked' action, which is essential given the many sibling tools.

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 permanently delete items) and when to use an alternative tool ('update_shopping_list_items' with 'checked=true' for ticking off). It also provides a clear two-step usage pattern: call once to get a token, then call again with that token. This is exemplary guidance for a destructive action.

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