DocsMint

delete_document

Destructive

Moves a document to trash without purging content or versions. Requires write access and an explicit delete request; permanent deletion is a separate action.

Instructions

Move one document to trash without purging content or versions. Use batch_documents(action=trash) for multiple explicit IDs. Requires write access and an explicit delete request; permanently_delete_document is a separate irreversible action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	UUID returned by the corresponding list or read operation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2Sep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"UUID of the document to move to trash; obtain it from search_documents, list_documents, or get_document."New value: +"UUID returned by the corresponding list or read operation."

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: the operation is a reversible trash move rather than a purge, and it requires write access plus an explicit delete request. It does not discuss error behavior or restore paths, but the recoverability framing is genuinely additive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action, then alternatives, then prerequisites and the dangerous look-alike. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the recoverability semantics, alternatives, and access requirement an agent needs to invoke this destructive-looking but non-purging tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that id is the UUID from a list/read operation. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (move one document to trash) plus the crucial scope detail that content and versions are not purged. It is immediately distinguishable from batch_documents and permanently_delete_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes single-ID use here versus batch_documents(action=trash) for multiple IDs, and names permanently_delete_document as the separate irreversible alternative. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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