delete_document

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: default moves to trash with 30-day retention, permanent=True bypasses trash, and documents can be restored via restore_document. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded. Despite length, it remains concise and informative.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The description covers behavior, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines thoroughly. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description fully explains both parameters: document_id as the document to delete, and permanent as the flag to bypass trash and delete without recovery. This adds significant value beyond the input schema.

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 explicitly states the tool moves a document to trash or permanently deletes it. It distinguishes from sibling tools like restore_document, archive_document, etc., by explaining the two deletion modes and the recovery option.

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 a clear list of when to use the tool: removing unwanted documents, deleting obsolete content, cleaning workspace, or permanently removing sensitive info. It also mentions an alternative (restore_document) but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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