delete_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data (e.g., comments or reactions), or error conditions. This leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon successful deletion (e.g., confirmation message, status code), error responses, authentication requirements, or side effects. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'item_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or where to find item IDs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a Qiita item'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_comment or delete_template, which would require mentioning it specifically targets items rather than other entity types.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing ownership or specific permissions), consequences of deletion, or when to choose other tools like update_item instead. With multiple deletion tools in the sibling list, this omission is significant.

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