item-service-delete-item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects child items, or has confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the options parameter, behavioral implications, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (id and options with database, language, version) are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'by its ID', which partially covers the 'id' parameter but ignores the 'options' object entirely. This fails to compensate for the significant coverage gap, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'common-remove-archive-item' or 'security-remove-user', which also perform deletion operations on different 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing various operations on Sitecore items (e.g., 'item-service-edit-item', 'item-service-get-item'), there's no indication of prerequisites, when this deletion is appropriate, or what happens to related data after deletion.

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