Supprimer un document

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the deletion is irreversible with no API-side trash, an elicitation-capable client will request user confirmation, and a refusal cancels the call. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then sections for when, alternatives, warnings, and return semantics. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes it easy for an agent 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool, this description covers the use case, the safer alternative, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and how to interpret the result. Nothing essential is missing for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema fully describes the id parameter as a numeric unique identifier, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful caveat that document IDs are suffixed and a mistyped ID can point to the wrong file, which aids careful invocation, though it does not precisely explain the ID format.

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 states a precise action: 'Supprime définitivement un document (CV, justificatif, pièce jointe) de BoondManager.' It names the resource and scope, and the permanent-deletion wording clearly separates it from read or update operations. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling document tools like boond_documents_get and boond_documents_create.

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 'Quand' section specifies exact conditions: removing an erroneous attachment at the user's explicit request. The 'Plutôt que' section explicitly recommends calling boond_documents_get first to verify the correct file, which is strong, actionable alternative guidance.

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