delete_reference_doc

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

Discloses destructive but recoverable nature (soft-delete), behavior on conflict (409), and distinguishes between recoverable and non-recoverable conflicts. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers the behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states the action and nature, second packs crucial error-handling guidance. Every part adds value.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, error types, and recovery path. Combined with full schema coverage, it is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for expectedVersion ('read it first') and confirm (acknowledges destructiveness), but these are already implied by the schema descriptions.

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 it deletes a reference_doc and specifies it is a soft-delete, recoverable via restore_reference_doc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like restore_reference_doc and list_reference_docs.

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?

Explicitly advises to read the doc first for its version, and provides troubleshooting for 409 errors (stale version vs. reference conflict), including a reference to the alternative restore_reference_doc.

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