Delete a document

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

Annotations already indicate destructive intent, but the description adds crucial context: the document goes to trash (restorable), the share link stops working, and setting purge to true causes permanent irreversible deletion. This goes well beyond the binary annotations and fully informs the agent of side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds valuable behavioral context (trash, link outage, restoration, purge irreversibility). No waste or redundancy.

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?

Given only 2 simple parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential user-facing behavior: default soft delete, restoration path, and permanent purge option. It does not need to describe return values because the output schema exists.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage ('file' as UUID/short link/URL, 'purge' as permanent destruction). The description reiterates purge behavior but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Move an EveryPage document to the trash') and identifies the resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like share, list, get, or update. It also explains the intent of making the share link stop working.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool (to delete/trash a document) by describing the action and its effects. It contrasts trash vs. purge behavior but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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