knowledge_delete_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does flag that chunks are deleted along with the parent document, which is useful cascade context, but it says nothing about permanence, recoverability, confirmation requirements, or behavior when the ID does not exist — all critical for a destructive operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive verb and cascade scope come first. It is arguably too terse for a delete operation, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 destructive, zero-annotation tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the definition leaves out error/not-found behavior, irreversibility, and any effect on dependent indexes. An agent could invoke it correctly but has no visibility into consequences.

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% for the single parameter. 'By ID' only restates the param name doc_id and adds no format, source, or acquisition guidance (e.g. where to obtain the ID, or whether it matches knowledge_list_documents output), so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (document) and the cascading scope ('all its chunks'), which is genuinely informative. It is clearly the destructive counterpart to knowledge_list_documents/knowledge_retrieve, but it never names a sibling or otherwise differentiates itself explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_forget or re-indexing, and no prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer everything about usage context.

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