remove_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and it even documents the exact return format with per-document statuses (deleted/not_found/failed) and error field, instructing to inspect each entry. This goes beyond a basic 'deletes documents' statement.

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 compact, using only three sentences. It front-loads the critical action and condition, then provides return details. No filler or redundant information.

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 deletion tool, the description covers the essential aspects: action, when to use, irreversibility, and expected result structure. The only gap is the `folder_id` parameter, which is not explained. Since it is optional and the description already supplies thorough return semantics, the missing param explanation is a minor shortfall in an otherwise complete definition.

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 provides detailed semantics for `doc_names` (verbatim copying, case-sensitivity, extension, example, max 10). The description adds nothing about parameters; it focuses on return values. The `folder_id` parameter has no description in the schema and is not mentioned in the tool description, so its semantics remain unclear. With 50% coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 tool's purpose: permanently deleting documents and all associated data. It uses specific language ('Permanently delete'), names the resource (documents), and distinguishes from siblings (browse, search, process, get) by highlighting the destructive nature and irreversibility.

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 explicitly states when to invoke: only when the user explicitly names the documents AND confirms deletion. It also notes the action is irreversible, which is a critical usage condition. No alternative tool is needed since no other sibling deletes documents.

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