delete_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals '(single undo step)', which tells the agent deletion is reversible in one action, but it omits any permission/scope requirements or what happens to dependent items. Partial but genuine behavioral value.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the undo qualifier, then a short Args block. Efficient overall; the Args line slightly restates the schema but stays brief.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter destructive tool the description covers the action, the ID source, and undo behavior, leaving only permissions unaddressed.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names item_ids as KIID strings and specifies they come from any list_* tool, which is real sourcing guidance beyond the bare array-of-strings schema.

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) and resource (board items) and qualifies the identifier type (KIID strings). No sibling competes for this operation, and an agent can immediately tell it apart from select_items, set_items_locked, or the list_* family.

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 clause 'Item KIID strings from any list_* tool' implies the upstream workflow (obtain IDs via a list tool), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternative. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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