delete_received_document

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a write/destroy operation, but the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the deletion is a soft delete into a trash bin and is reversible via recover_document. That changes an agent's risk calculus materially and is genuine value beyond the annotation. It does not cover authorization requirements or behavior when the document is already deleted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the recoverability note. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is affected and that it is recoverable, which is the information an agent most needs before calling it. Minor gaps remain: no mention of permission requirements, error behavior on an already-deleted or nonexistent id, or confirmation of which id domain is expected.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: company_id carries a description with its fallback default, while id is undocumented but self-evident given the tool name. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema (it never states that id is the received-document identifier or whether it accepts a UUID vs numeric ID). With the schema doing most of the work on a two-parameter tool, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Elimina') and a specific resource ('un documento ricevuto'), and even enumerates the document subtypes it covers (spesa, nota di credito passiva, DDT passivo). An agent can distinguish it from delete_issued_document or delete_receipt by the resource noun, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

It gives clear usage context by explaining that deletion is non-final and the recovery path is recover_document, which effectively names the alternative tool for undoing the action. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use (e.g. prefer update_received_document or archive instead of deleting), so it is not a full 5.

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