ecp_mongo_delete_document

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Irreversible' is a meaningful warning that deletion is permanent, which is valuable. However, it does not mention credentials/permissions, whether related data is affected, or any response/confirmation behavior beyond the irreversible warning.

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 extremely concise: one clear action sentence plus a one-word warning. Every word adds value and the most important safety information ('Irreversible') is included without bloat.

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?

The tool is a destructive Mongo delete with six required parameters and no output schema. The description is minimally viable: it names the operation, target, identifier, and irreversibility. Still missing are clarifications such as whether 'id' means Mongo's _id or another field, and what response or error behavior to expect.

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 for six undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that the document is identified by 'id'; it does not explain confirm, db_username, password, collection_name, or db_name. The schema names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds very little parameter meaning beyond the single id reference.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Delete a document, identified by id.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that delete databases, users, rows, or collections by naming the document as the target. No ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no exclusions or conditions. While the name and 'document' imply Mongo usage, there is no explicit routing compared to sibling delete tools across other database types.

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