Delete Docling document items at anchors

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this operation mutates or destroys, so the description's added value is the cache prerequisite and the anchor-based scoping of what gets deleted. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 short and front-loads the operation in the first sentence. There is slight redundancy between 'Delete multiple document items identified by their anchors' and 'removes specified items ... based on their anchor references,' but it remains appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and an output schema. The description covers what the tool does and the important cache requirement, so an agent can safely select and invoke it. A slightly stronger description would also address invalid-anchor behavior or clarify whether deletion is irreversible.

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 coverages is 100%: document_key and document_anchors are both well-described, with examples such as '#/texts/2' and '#/tables/1'. The tool description restates the anchor-based semantics but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Delete') with a precise resource ('document items') and selection mechanism ('anchors'). It also clarifies that this operates on a Docling document in the local cache and can remove multiple items, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling read/update tools.

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 clearly conveys the main use case: deleting multiple cached document items by anchor references. It also states an explicit prerequisite: the document must already exist in the local cache. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the destructive use case is obvious among the listed siblings.

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