delete_document

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: describes default behavior (trash with 30-day retention), permanent deletion option, and recovery via restore_document. No contradictions with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true).

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?

Well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, args, and returns. Front-loaded with main action. Slightly verbose but clear; could be tightened without losing information.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return value, and behavioral notes. Mentions interaction with restore_document. Could benefit from differentiation from sibling tools like archive_document or batch_delete_documents, but is adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters (document_id and permanent) in detail, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Includes default value for permanent.

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 clearly states 'Moves a document to trash or permanently deletes it', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_document and batch_delete_documents by detailing the deletion behavior (trash vs permanent).

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?

Provides explicit use cases such as removing unwanted documents, deleting obsolete content, and cleaning up workspace. Mentions restore_document for recovery. However, lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use archive_document instead).

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