delete_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's destructive and irreversible nature, the exact scope of deletion, and the requirement for user confirmation. This exceeds the baseline for behavioral transparency, as it covers the most critical behavioral aspects.

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 two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the destructive warning and scope, and the second sentence adds the confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers all essential information: what it does, what it destroys, irreversibility, and the mandatory user confirmation. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the document_id parameter. However, the description's reference to 'deletes a document' makes it obvious that document_id is the document identifier. Since there is only one parameter, the meaning is clear from context, but the description adds no additional details about format, validation, or constraints. It partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb ('deletes'), a specific resource ('document'), and explicitly lists the associated data destroyed (material, flashcards, quiz questions, answer history). It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, none of which perform deletion.

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 clear usage context: it is destructive and irreversible, and it explicitly instructs the agent to confirm with the user by stating the document title before calling. While it does not name alternatives, no other sibling tool performs deletion, so no alternative routing is needed. The confirmation requirement serves as a strong usage guideline.

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