miro_delete_item

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating 'Cannot be undone' and recommending dry_run for preview. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint: true is consistent).

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 two sentences: the first efficiently states the purpose, and the second adds a critical warning. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, with no extraneous words.

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 deletion tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, irreversible nature, and dry_run option. However, it could be more complete by clarifying its scope relative to sibling tools (e.g., for generic items vs. specific types), but overall it is 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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of dry_run in the description aligns with its schema description but doesn't add new information.

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 it deletes an item from a Miro board, using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings with many specific delete tools (e.g., delete_app_card, delete_board), this tool is for generic items, distinguishing it effectively.

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 includes a warning about irreversibility and recommends using dry_run, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like miro_bulk_delete or other specific delete tools. Usage context is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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