clio_delete_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is 'Destructive' and requires a two-step process: first call returns a preview + confirm_token, second call with the token executes. This goes beyond simply saying 'delete' and gives the agent essential behavioral context. It does not describe the exact preview structure, but the key destructive behavior is well-covered.

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 zero filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second sentence explains the destructive workflow. Every word earns its place.

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 delete tool with a two-step confirmation, the description covers the essential workflow. It explains what happens on first and second calls. It does not detail the preview contents or token expiration, but with no output schema and no annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Sibling tools are not needed for this action.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that the confirm_token is generated in the first call and used in the second call to execute the deletion. This gives crucial meaning to the confirm_token parameter. The id parameter's purpose is obvious from the tool name and required status, though not explicitly restated.

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 'Delete a document.' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like clio_get_document, clio_upload_document, and clio_move_document. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 context: this tool is used to delete a document. It also explains the two-step confirmation workflow (preview + confirm_token, then second call to execute), which is an actionable usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed.

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