delete_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a document, but does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it checks for references, what happens to linked records, or if there are any permissions or side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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?

The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. It avoids fluff and every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise and easily scannable.

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?

Given it is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'attached' means, how the parameters relate to each other, whether the document is permanently deleted, or any safety considerations. The moderate schema coverage does not resolve these gaps.

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 50%: 'original_file' has a description ('Chemin complet du fichier'), but 'modulepart' is undocumented. The tool description adds no information about parameter meaning or usage, failing to compensate for the missing 'modulepart' 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 'Supprimer un document attaché' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (an attached document). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents, get_document, and generate_document_pdf, which are non-destructive operations 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?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to delete an attached document. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or provide context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the document must be detached first or if deletion is permanent).

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