Remove unwanted documents from a Locus dataspace by specifying the space name and document ID, keeping your semantic data relevant and organized.
Delete a document by its ID from a Locus dataspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space | Yes | Name of the dataspace | |
| doc_id | Yes | Document ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'Delete', implying destructiveness, but does not disclose permanence, irreversibility, cascading effects, required permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single sentence of only eight words that directly states the action and scope. No filler or redundancy, and the key verb 'Delete' is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple with two documented required parameters and no output schema. The description and schema together are sufficient to make the call, but lack behavioral context such as permanence, error behavior, or side effects that annotations would normally provide. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would be better, but the simplicitity keeps it adequate.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Name of the dataspace', 'Document ID to delete'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating that deletion is by ID and within a dataspace. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.
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?
Description states a specific verb 'Delete', resource 'document', identifier 'by its ID', and scope 'Locus dataspace'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like delete_space, get_document, and list_documents without ambiguity.
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 deleting a document from a dataspace, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as delete_space or conditions for not using this tool. The resource scope provides clear context, but no explicit decision rules are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.