delete_items

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive profile is known without the description. The description does add one useful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations — 'Providing neither deletes nothing' — which guards against accidental mass deletion or no-ops. It does not discuss irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects, so added value is modest.

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?

Two sentences and roughly 20 words, with the core verb-resource pair front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence is a high-value safety note that earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the combined description and schema cover the two deletion modes, mutual exclusivity, the bulk-delete escape hatch, and the no-op guard. Minor gaps remain: whether confirm is mandatory for deletion and that deletions are permanent are left to inference, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the ids-vs-query relationship and the no-op guard, but the schema already documents every parameter, including mutual exclusivity of ids and query and the { 'limit': -1 } bulk-delete escape hatch. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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), a clear resource (items from a collection), and the two selection modes (explicit IDs or query). 'Providing neither deletes nothing' sharpens the scope beyond a generic delete. It is readily distinguishable from delete_collection in the sibling list, which targets collections rather than items.

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 conveys the two mutually exclusive selection modes and the safe no-op case, which implies when the tool applies. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use delete_collection for whole collections' or 'use update_item for edits.' Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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