delete_document

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

With no annotations, the description has full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds that deletion also affects catalog entries and that project name is required for safety. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility (soft vs permanent), or drive file handling beyond schema. Some value added, but gaps remain.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every word contributes.

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 description covers the primary action and a key safety constraint. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe response format, but this is acceptable for a delete tool. Context on perm vs soft delete exists in the schema, so it's adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add param-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of 'project name to prevent accidental deletion' echoes the schema's required project with a safety rationale, which is marginal.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'a document and its catalog entries,' making the tool's function clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_document or delete_document_type.

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 use when deleting a document and mentions a safety requirement (project name), but it does not explicitly contrast with other delete tools (e.g., delete_document_type) or provide when-not scenarios. Clear context, but no exclusions.

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