delete_doc

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. The description simply states 'Delete a ClickUp Doc by ID' without mentioning that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or might cascade to related content (e.g., pages). It also does not disclose any required permissions or differences from other delete operations.

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 with only six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbosity or redundant information.

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?

This is a simple delete operation with two fully documented required parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the core action and resource, and the schema covers the parameters. However, it does not mention irreversibility or potential side effects, which would enhance completeness, though these are arguably covered under behavioral transparency.

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% for both parameters (doc_id and team_id), so the description need not add detailed parameter semantics. The phrase 'by ID' is somewhat ambiguous, but the schema clarifies that both doc_id and team_id are required. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which warrants the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and clearly identifies the resource ('ClickUp Doc') and the method of identification ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_doc, create_doc, update_doc, and delete_doc_page.

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 implies usage (when you want to delete a doc) but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or consequences. It does not mention exclusions, such as the need for the team_id or that this tool deletes docs while delete_doc_page deletes pages.

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