Delete acquisition item

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the critical dry-run default and the confirmation requirement, which significantly reduces the risk of accidental destructive actions. This is valuable behavioral context for the agent.

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, front-loaded with verb and scope, then a vital safety note. Every word earns its place—no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope (pending acquisition), and the dry-run/confirmation safety mechanism, which is sufficient given the simple parameters and annotations. It doesn't describe return values, but no output schema exists and the schema fills parameter details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'confirm:true' mirrors the schema's confirm parameter description, adding no new meaning. Other parameters are fully handled by the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Remove' with resource 'item from a pending acquisition', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_acquisition (which deletes the whole acquisition) and update_acquisition_item. Stating 'pending acquisition' provides precise scope.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true', giving clear usage for safe execution. However, it doesn't mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like delete_acquisition, so it's not a full 5.

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