Delete Knowledge Document (Legacy)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it specifies that both the document record and its embeddings are deleted, states irreversibility, enumerates error codes (401/403/404), and notes legacy status. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure expected when annotations exist.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then structured into clear lines for requirements, auth, errors, and related tools. It is slightly repetitive in stating the docId source twice, but every line adds value; no filler. Slightly longer than necessary but still 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?

For a destructive operation with auth and error conditions, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, auth mode, error codes, irreversibility, and the v2 alternative. No output schema exists, but for a delete operation the return value is likely trivial. The description is fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (docId from list-v2, appId optional). It does reinforce the source of docId, but that is more usage guidance than parameter semantics.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource statement: 'Remove a previously ingested document from an app's RAG sources by docId' and immediately flags it as the legacy user-auth route. This clearly distinguishes it from the v2 sibling, and explicitly names the sibling in the Related line.

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 tells the agent to source the docId from ethora-sources-docs-list-v2, states the auth mode and ownership requirement, and explicitly routes app-token/B2B callers to ethora-sources-docs-delete-v2. This is a textbook when-to-use vs alternative explanation.

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