uselink_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. It explicitly states a key side effect: "the document is removed and the public URL stops working." This communicates the destructive, immediate consequence. However, it does not explicitly mention irreversibility or whether associated data (comments, assets) is affected, which would add further transparency.

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 that front-load the main action: "Delete a uselink document." The second sentence provides a useful impact detail without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the operation and its primary consequence (public URL stops working). It could optionally mention irreversibility or error cases, but for a basic delete tool, the information is adequate.

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?

The input schema covers the sole parameter 'id' 100% with a description of 'Document UUID'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that the document is deleted. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: "Delete a uselink document." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uselink_read_document, uselink_create_document, and uselink_update_document by naming the delete operation directly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what happens (document removed, URL stops working) but does not mention prerequisites such as unpublishing the document first, nor does it contrast with other deletion-related operations. The absence of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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