Delete a document of any type

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds substantial behavioral context: required permission levels, rules for embedded documents, explicit refusal cases, and dryRun behavior including embedded documents. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 long but every sentence carries operational value: identification modes, permissions, refusals, dryRun, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists exclusions, though the dense refusal list could be slightly better structured.

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 complex destructive tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers identification, permissions, failure cases, dryRun behavior, and routing to siblings. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning by explaining the uuid-or-documentType+id identification modes, but it does not substantially enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Generic fallback: delete one document of any type', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many specialized deletion tools by labeling it a fallback and specifying the two identification methods.

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 explicitly lists preferred alternatives ('Prefer journal-delete, journal-delete-page, delete-scene, manage-actors, delete-playlist, delete-roll-table and delete-tokens where they fit') and states conditions under which deletion is refused. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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