delete_shared_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It comprehensively covers: permanence (irreversible), the dual effects (link death + search removal), no history retention, the confirmation requirement, and the alternative tool recommendation. This is exemplary disclosure for a destructive 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?

Three packed sentences, each earning its place: the first states what happens, the second warns irreversibility, the third provides usage guardrails. Information-dense with zero filler.

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 destructive 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, behavioral consequences, safety requirements, and alternative selection, leaving almost nothing for the agent to guess.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter's semantics thoroughly (must only pass after explicit user approval). However, doc_id_or_url is not elaborated—the agent must infer it accepts an ID or URL from the parameter name. Partial compensation; the confirm context is strong but doc_id_or_url lacks detail.

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 verb (delete), resource (shared doc), and the two key behaviors: the link dies and the record disappears from search. It also explicitly differentiates from revoke_shared_doc ('unlike revoke_shared_doc, no history is kept'). This is specific and distinguishes from siblings.

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?

Excellent when/when-not guidance: explicitly states to prefer revoke_shared_doc for routine takedowns, and requires confirm:true only after explicit user approval. It also warns the operation is irreversible on both backends, giving the agent clear guardrails for appropriate invocation.

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