delete_document_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive operation, but does not explain potential side effects (e.g., impact on documents using the type), reversibility, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful information: the action and the scope guidance. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, making it appropriately concise.

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 two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential action and scope behavior. However, it omits side-effect context, such as what happens to documents associated with the deleted type, which is relevant given the sibling tool delete_document exists. This leaves the description adequate but not fully 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining how to choose scope='global' vs 'project', which is not fully captured in the schema's generic phrase 'Type scope to delete from.' This extra guidance elevates the score.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete a document type.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_document by naming the resource type. It also adds useful scope distinction (global vs project), which further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides guidance on using the 'scope' parameter ('Use scope='global' for global types, or scope='project' for project-specific types'), which helps with invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_document or list_document_types, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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