paperclip_delete_document

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond by listing error codes (401,403,404) with remedies, return type (deleted document stub), and access constraints (Board-only). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Information is logically sectioned with emojis, bullet points, and clear headings. Every sentence serves a purpose—no redundancy. Front-loaded with the critical action and context.

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 simple delete with 2 params and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, errors, and return value. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. Description repeats parameters (issueId, key) with examples but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The Board-only context is the only additional insight.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a document from an issue by key', specifying the action (delete), resource (document), and scope (by issue key). It distinguishes from siblings like paperclip_upsert_document by noting the Board-only requirement and providing a concrete usage example.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use ('removing an obsolete document') and when-not-to-use ('clear the body' → use upsert) guidance. Also specifies that board API key is required, which sets expectations for auth context.

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