delete_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description goes further by disclosing the cascade effect (all sections are destroyed) and the irreversibility with no undo path. It also imposes a user-confirmation requirement not represented in any structured field.

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?

Three tight sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded, followed by scope, alternative, and prerequisite. No sentence is filler and each adds a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: what is destroyed, that it is irreversible, the safer alternative, and the confirmation step.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents document_id and the numeric-string acceptance. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('permanently deletes an IT Glue document') and expands the scope to 'including all of its sections'. It also names the sibling archive_document as a contrast, letting an agent distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: prefer archive_document if the document may be needed again, and confirm with the user before invoking. Both the when-not-to-use condition and an operational prerequisite are stated directly.

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