Delete an Onshape document

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

The annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by clarifying that deletion means moving to trash rather than permanent destruction, and that the entire document is affected. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The deletion behavior is stated first, and the scoping clarification is front-loaded immediately afterward.

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 tool with a destructive annotation, the description is complete: it names the action, the target scope, and the non-tab exclusion. No return format is needed for a simple delete operation, and no additional prerequisites or side effects are necessary to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'doc' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to the parameter itself, 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 description names a specific action ('Move a document to the trash') and a specific resource ('a document'), and immediately distinguishes itself from tab-level operations with 'not a single tab.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from siblings like onshape_delete_element.

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 phrase 'affects the whole document, not a single tab' provides a clear exclusion boundary: use this only for whole documents, not individual elements. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as onshape_delete_element, but the when-not condition is clear.

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