delete_document

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds specifics annotations cannot express: which artifact types are destroyed, the processing-state guard, and that local files are untouched. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences with the destruction scope front-loaded and constraints following. Minor waste in the blank-line formatting and the slightly vague 'Local files are not touched' phrasing, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the stated destruction scope and processing guard, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already explains document_id including its provenance (ocr_file or list_documents). The description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a FastOCR document') and enumerates exactly what is removed (original, text, searchable PDF). This is unambiguous next to read-style siblings like get_document or list_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?

Gives a concrete precondition: documents still processing cannot be deleted, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not name an alternative or suggest a waiting/retry path when that precondition fails, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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