delete_indexed_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds a useful side-effect detail: removal of 'cached metadata.' However, it does not mention irreversibility, failure behavior, or prerequisites. While it discloses what gets destroyed, it stops short of a full behavioral picture.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and scope. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is ideally sized for quick comprehension.

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 one-parameter deletion tool, the description covers the primary function and a key side effect. However, it omits warning about permanence and error cases, which are important contextual details. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description still feels incomplete for a destructive operation.

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, document_id, is only described in the schema as a string. The description does not explain what a document_id looks like, how to obtain it, or any format requirements. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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') and the resource ('one document from the vector store and its cached metadata'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_documents or list_indexed_documents, which focus on retrieval. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as refresh_document_index or other document tools. The description implies deletion usage but does not explicitly state exclusions or recommended contexts, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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