kb_delete_document

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds crucial context: what exactly gets destroyed ('drops its indexed chunks') and the idempotent behavior in plain language. This goes beyond the structured hints and clearly explains the side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action, and includes necessary warnings. Every word adds value: destructive warning, idempotency note, and side-effect explanation. No fluff.

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 simple destructive operation with strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, side effects, user confirmation requirement, and idempotency behavior. No output schema exists, but return values are not critical for a delete operation. The description is complete for its complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'one document from a KB' which vaguely maps to document_id and project_id, but it does not explain the parameters' formats, the optional config field, or how the identifiers are used. The schema titles 'Project Id' and 'Document Id' are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful parameter detail.

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 clearly states the action: 'Permanently delete one document from a KB' with a specific resource (document) and scope (one document, from a KB). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_delete (likely for whole KB deletion) by mentioning 'one document' and 'drops its indexed chunks'.

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 clear usage guidance: 'DESTRUCTIVE — confirm with the user before calling' and notes idempotency ('deleting an already-deleted doc is a no-op'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-destructive needs, but the destructive warning makes the appropriate context obvious.

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