delete_module_item

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial context by emphatically stating that content is NOT deleted, which is a non-obvious behavioral nuance beyond the annotations. It does not, however, mention idempotency (removing a non-existent item likely succeeds silently) or any permission requirements, but given the annotations cover the destructive nature, the added value is high. Score 4 because it goes beyond annotations but could add a bit more on idempotent behavior.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the primary action; the second provides a critical caveat. No fluff, no repetition. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple mutation tool with three well-documented parameters and supportive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It would be slightly improved by mentioning idempotent behavior (e.g., removing an already-unlinked item is a no-op) and any side effects like reordering, but these are minor. The key behavioral warning is present. Score 4.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds no extra information about the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 ('Remove an item from a module') and the specific resource (module item), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_module (deletes an entire module) and add_module_item (adds an item). The scope is unambiguously defined.

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 explicitly provides usage context by clarifying that this tool only unlinks the item from the module, not deleting the underlying content. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool versus a destructive delete that removes content. It implicitly warns against using this when actual content deletion is desired.

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