Api managed documents destroy

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description says the endpoint allows documents to be 'viewed or edited'. That is a direct contradiction of the destructive semantics: it hides the permanence of the delete and implies a safe read/mutate operation. No permissions, cascade effects, or irreversibility are disclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. However, its brevity comes from being generic auto-generated text rather than front-loaded, purposeful content, so the size does not earn it a higher score.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description should at minimum state that the document is permanently removed and note any preconditions (e.g. existence of revisions, folder permissions). Instead it supplies nothing about consequences and mischaracterizes the operation, leaving the agent dependent on the annotations alone.

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 tool takes one required parameter (id) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The schema only gives type string, so an agent must infer that this is the managed document identifier and where to obtain it. The description adds zero meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names the resource (managed documents) but states the wrong action: 'viewed or edited' rather than deletion. The tool name says 'destroy' and the annotations say destructiveHint=true, so an agent reading only the description would form the wrong expectation. This is boilerplate that fails to state what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. managed_documents_partial_update for edits, managed_documents_retrieve for viewing), and no warning that this permanently removes a document. Worse, 'viewed or edited' actively suggests usage that this endpoint does not support.

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