Delete Item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: meeting deletions trigger attendee cancellations, OneDrive items go to the recycle bin, and the result reports recoverability. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or scope limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then the confirm requirement, then the side effects. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 multi-resource tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies the missing human-facing context (confirm precondition, cancellation side effect, recycle-bin behavior). Only auth/permission expectations are absent, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so every parameter including confirm, id, and cancellation_message is already documented. The description restates the confirm gate and implies the recoverability outcome but adds no new parameter-level syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) plus an explicit enumeration of the eight supported resource types, so the agent knows exactly what scope of items this applies to. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like m365_update or m365_move.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Always requires confirm=true after the user approves') that governs invocation, and the resource enum tells the agent which target types are valid. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., prefer move/archive instead of delete), so it falls short of a full 5.

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