pdf_delete

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect—that embeddings are also removed—which adds value beyond the name. However, it does not mention irreversibility, failure modes, or whether the operation is idempotent. While the destructive nature is clear from 'Remove', more transparency would be expected given zero annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the important side effect. No unnecessary words or fluff; it is optimally sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 the simple one-parameter schema and the mention of the embedding removal side effect, the description covers the core behavior. The output schema exists (though not shown), so return value details are not required. Minor gaps like error handling or prerequisites are not critical for such a straightforward tool, making it nearly complete.

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 description for doc_id is complete: 'Document ID returned by pdf_ingest or pdf_list_documents.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema already provides sufficient guidance on how to obtain the ID.

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 ('Remove'), a clear resource ('an ingested PDF and all its embeddings'), and the overall action of deletion from the store. It clearly distinguishes from all sibling tools (search, get_page, list, extract_tables, ingest) which perform different operations. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 implies usage (when you want to delete a PDF) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., 'must be ingested first'). Because there is no competing delete tool, the distinction is implicit, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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