doc_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes and removes from all agents, which implies a destructive, irreversible action, but doesn't mention permissions needed, error conditions, confirmation requirements, or what happens to associated data. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds critical scope information. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given this is a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values. For a high-stakes operation like deletion, more contextual information is needed to guide safe usage.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (studio and documentId). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for documentId or implications of studio choice. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a document from Pickaxe'), with additional scope information ('removes it from all connected agents') that distinguishes it from potential siblings like doc_disconnect. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like doc_disconnect (which might remove connections without deletion) or user_delete (for different resources). It mentions the effect but not the appropriate context or prerequisites for invoking this destructive operation.

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