delete_document

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that content is backed up locally first and that ambiguous names are refused, adding safety and error-condition context.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundant information; each sentence adds a distinct piece of information (action/identifiers, backup, ambiguity handling).

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?

Covers the action, identification methods, backup behavior, and ambiguity handling, but omits any explanation of the project_id parameter and does not describe success/error returns. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 description explains that the 'document' parameter can be a uuid or unambiguous file name, but it does not explain the 'project_id' parameter at all. With 0% schema coverage, this leaves a gap for one of the two required parameters.

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 (Delete a document) and the resource (document), with additional specificity about the two identifiers (uuid or unambiguous file name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_project and other document 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use uuid versus file name based on ambiguity, and notes the refusal behavior. It does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but it gives clear context for invocation.

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