Delete a document or subfolder

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the decisive operational facts: no trash, no undo, backlinks are left dangling rather than fixed, and base_hash causes a no-op if the file changed. That is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking an irreversible operation.

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?

Six tight sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible nature of the operation, and each sentence carries distinct routing or safety information. Slightly dense, but nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the description covers everything an agent must know: destructive outcome, missing safety net, sibling alternatives, and the conditional-delete semantics. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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 the parameters are already documented; the description nonetheless adds meaning the schema lacks, namely that recursive is required for any non-empty subfolder and that base_hash exists as an optimistic-concurrency guard tied to the version previously read.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: permanently delete a document or subfolder from the documents folder and the index. It names the exact scope and distinguishes itself from siblings such as ragdown_remember and ragdown_backlinks by explaining what those are for instead.

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?

Explicit routing: call ragdown_backlinks first to inspect incoming links, use ragdown_remember with supersedes when a document is merely out of date rather than unwanted, and use recursive: true only for a subfolder that holds content. Both the when and the when-not are spelled out with named alternatives.

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