doc_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous or asynchronous, what happens on failure, or what the expected response looks like. The parameter list provides some hints about behavior but no explicit behavioral guidance is given.

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 extremely brief with just the action name and a parameter list. While this is concise, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The information is front-loaded (action first, then parameters), but the parameter section lacks any explanatory text that would help an agent understand how to use them correctly.

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 with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the deletion context (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch document deletion), doesn't describe what happens when documents are deleted, doesn't explain error conditions, and provides minimal parameter guidance. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.

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 description lists all 4 parameters with their names, which adds value since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it only provides parameter names without explaining what each parameter means, their expected formats, or how they affect the deletion operation. For example, 'refresh' and 'routing' are listed but their purpose and acceptable values aren't explained. This provides basic parameter awareness but minimal semantic understanding.

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 states '删除文档' which translates to 'delete document' - this is a tautology that simply restates the tool name 'doc_delete'. While it clarifies the resource (document), it doesn't specify what type of document system this operates on or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'doc_delete_by_query', 'index_delete', or other deletion operations in the list.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple deletion-related tools in the sibling list (doc_delete_by_query, index_delete, alias_delete, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific document deletion tool is appropriate versus those other options. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context is provided.

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