Soft-delete a markdown document by moving it to the space trash. This keeps the document recoverable while removing it from active corporate knowledge.
Soft-delete a markdown document and keep it in the space trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| space | No | ||
| document | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (no readOnly or destructive flags), so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the soft-delete behavior and that the document is retained in trash, which is transparent about the non-destructive nature. It does not mention permissions or reversibility details, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.
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?
A single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. No wasted words; every part adds value.
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 tool with an output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. It does not explain the parameters, but the tool's complexity is low and the sibling context clarifies its role. Missing parameter details are a minor gap.
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 schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'space' or 'document' parameters. While 'document' is obviously the target and 'space' is the container, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter names imply. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 the specific action (soft-delete), the resource (markdown document), and the outcome (kept in space trash). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gateway_knowledge_document_restore or gateway_knowledge_document_get, and no ambiguity exists about 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 implies the usage context: it is the deletion operation for documents, and the soft-delete nature implies that restoration is possible (via siblings like restore tools). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.