delete_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the deletion behavior: default temporary deletion with 30-day retention in trash, recovery options via 'restore_document', and irreversible permanent deletion when 'permanent=True'. This covers critical behavioral traits like destructiveness and recovery mechanisms.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important notes, usage guidelines, args, returns) and front-loaded key information. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value (e.g., retention period, recovery tool reference, usage examples), justifying its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with two modes), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, usage, and even hints at the return value, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'document_id' as the target and 'permanent' with detailed semantics (default behavior, recovery implications, and irreversible nature). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('moves to trash or permanently deletes') and resource ('document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'archive_document', 'restore_document', and 'list_trash' which handle related but different operations.

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 scenarios (e.g., 'Remove unwanted documents', 'Permanently remove sensitive information') and distinguishes between temporary and permanent deletion. It also references the 'restore_document' tool as an alternative for recovery, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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