Delete document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the domain lock acquisition, destructive permanence, the differing removal semantics for flat vs. feat domains, and three distinct error classes (ValueError raised before any file access, XNotFoundError, DeleteError). That is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the destructive action and scope come first, then resolution mechanics, then error taxonomy. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical enum recital partially duplicates the schema enum and could be trimmed.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers what gets destroyed, how lookup and locking work, the return value, and all failure modes. With an output schema present, it need not expand further on response shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted type values, explicitly excludes `adr`, and explains that `id` is resolved with validation against path-injection and wrong formats before file access. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare enum and string type.

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 an existing document') plus the domains it applies to and the exact filesystem effect (single .md file vs. whole <base>/<id>/ folder). An agent can distinguish this from the many create_/get_/list_/parse_ siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'the sole delete entry point -- the former per-domain delete_<d> tools are removed', which resolves routing against siblings. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, but since no alternative delete path exists there is nothing to disambiguate further.

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