delete_knowledge_base_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not mention the cascade behavior or the force override that determines whether dependent agents are affected.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. But it is under-specified rather than truly concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any actionable context.

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?

This is a destructive, cascading delete with no output schema and no usage context in the description. Annotations and the schema cover safety and the force flag, but an agent gets no guidance on verifying the target or on when deletion is the right 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both documentation_id and force (including the cascade and dependent-agent semantics) are fully documented in the schema. The description only hints at folder scope via "Or Folder" and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase names the verb (Delete) and the resource (Knowledge Base Document), and the addition of "Or Folder" signals a scope broader than the tool name implies. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no differentiation from siblings such as post_knowledge_base_bulk_delete_route or delete_rag_index.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The folder-deletion capability appears only as an unexplained suffix, with no indication of when a folder vs. a document is the intended target.

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