appwrite_delete_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a destructive deletion operation, the description fails to state whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or if it cascades to related data. No error behavior is described (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist).

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 a single sentence (excluding the '[UNIFIED]' metadata tag), making it structurally efficient. However, given the 4-parameter destructive operation with undocumented schema fields, the brevity is inappropriate rather than exemplary conciseness.

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 operation requiring 4 hierarchical identifiers with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, destructive warnings, and return value information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 4 required parameters, the description fails to compensate. While 'by ID' references document_id, it does not explain the hierarchical relationship between site, database_id, collection_id, and document_id, nor what 'site' refers to in the Appwrite context.

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 verb (Delete) and resource (document) with the method (by ID). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'appwrite_bulk_delete_documents', which could cause confusion when choosing between single vs. bulk deletion. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't aid comprehension.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., appwrite_bulk_delete_documents for multiple documents). No prerequisites mentioned for obtaining the required database_id, collection_id, or document_id values.

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