Remove a CV or cover letter by providing its document ID and type, keeping job application files up to date.
Delete a document (CV or cover letter).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Type of document to delete | |
| document_id | Yes | The document ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Delete'. It does not disclose that the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether deletion cascades, what permissions are required, or what the caller gets back. For a destructive tool this is a substantial gap.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the verb-resource pairing is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but it is not padded or wasteful.
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?
A destructive, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with two required parameters deserves at least a note on irreversibility or side effects; the description supplies none. What exists is accurate but insufficient for an agent to call this safely.
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 both document_id and type are documented in the schema, including the cv/cover-letter enum. The description's parenthetical restates that enum rather than adding format, ID-source, or validation detail, so it does not exceed the baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (document), and scopes it to the two document kinds, CV or cover letter. It is distinguishable from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_job, delete_comment, delete_notification) by resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_documents/get_document/rename_document in the same document family.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus siblings like rename_document or get_document, no prerequisites such as ownership, and no mention of whether the deletion is reversible or confirmable. The agent must infer everything about usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.