delete_document

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context about the soft-delete nature, recovery window (~30 days), and the condition under which data is permanently lost. This goes beyond the simple destructive flag and informs the agent of consequences and reversibility.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action, the recovery consequence, and the alternative are presented in a logical, front-loaded order. Every sentence adds distinct 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 two-parameter destructive operation, the description covers what happens, the recovery window, and the alternative for permanent deletion. With annotations and full schema coverage, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'id' and 'confirm' are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning (e.g., id format or confirm semantics), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Move a document to trash') and resource ('document'), immediately clarifying the operation as a soft-delete. It distinguishes itself from permanent deletion by explicitly naming empty_trash, and from other delete_* siblings by focusing on documents.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (soft-delete with recoverability) and provides a direct alternative: 'Use empty_trash for permanent deletion.' This is clear routing that prevents an agent from accidentally choosing permanent deletion.

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