outline_delete_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description fails to specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it affects nested/child documents, or what error conditions might occur. For a destructive mutation tool, this lack of safety context is a significant gap.

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 at six words, front-loaded with the action verb. While efficient, it borders on under-specification given the destructive nature of the operation and lack of annotations. However, there is no redundant or wasted text.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical information such as whether the deletion is permanent, what the return value indicates (success/failure), or whether the operation can be undone. The minimal text does not sufficiently cover the behavioral complexity of deletion.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (the 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter (such as ID format or where to obtain it), but the schema adequately covers the single required input.

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 (document), and scope (from Outline), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_document or update_document. However, it does not specify whether this is a permanent deletion, soft delete, or archival, which would help distinguish the specific deletion semantics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring the document ID beforehand (from outline_get_document) or necessary permissions. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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