delete_documentDelete one document. Never blocked by quotas; frees a document slot. Emptying a whole collection? Use delete_collection instead of looping this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | The database URL returned at creation (or its bare s-... capability). | |
| id | Yes | Document id (doc_...). | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name (created implicitly on first write). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it is never blocked by quotas and frees a document slot. While it could mention permanence or side effects, this is sufficient for a simple deletion tool.
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 the main purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
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 deletion tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral information and provides a sibling alternative. It is complete and sufficient.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it does not elaborate on syntax or format.
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 'Delete one document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'delete_collection' by noting that for emptying a whole collection, that sibling should be used instead.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when not to: 'Never blocked by quotas; frees a document slot' and 'Emptying a whole collection? Use delete_collection instead of looping this.' This gives clear context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that differentiate similar operations (e.g., create_database vs pro_create_database vs pro_attach_database). Agents can easily select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but 'database_status' is noun_verb. The 'pro_' prefix is consistently used for Pro account tools. Overall pattern is clear and predictable.
16 tools cover the full lifecycle of temporary databases, document CRUD, collection management, and Pro account operations. Each tool is justified and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD for documents, database lifecycle (create, delete, extend, status), and full Pro account management (checkout, cancel, create, attach, list). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.