AxKnowledgeBase_delete_private_knowledge_base_paper

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it raises an MCP elicitation, handles declines/cancels/unsupported clients with a non-error result, and explicitly warns not to retry without fresh cause. It also details the cascading deletion of the paper and its contents when the user is the last owner. This is exemplary transparency for a destructive operation.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then explains edge cases and behavioral nuances. It is longer than average, but every sentence conveys necessary information about ownership semantics, id sourcing, and elicitation handling. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to get the id, the confirmation step, and the non-error decline behavior. It does not describe the success return value or any success response format, which is a minor gap. Overall, an agent can use this tool correctly.

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 already describes doc_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds guidance on sourcing the id (never guess or construct) and specifies where to obtain it (list/search results). This additional context strengthens parameter semantics beyond the 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 action: 'Remove yourself as an owner of one paper in the organization's private knowledge graph.' It further explains the two outcomes (deletion if last owner, otherwise ownership removal only), making the purpose unambiguous. This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling search and retrieval tools.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (when you need to relinquish ownership) and instructs to get the doc_id from list_private_knowledge_base_papers or search_private_knowledge_base. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar operations, but the behavior is clear enough. It also warns against retrying after a decline, which is useful.

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