Core Content Services MCP Server

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by clarifying it deletes 'an entire version series (all versions of a document)', which specifies the scope of destruction. It also mentions success/failure outcomes, though annotations don't cover this. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral outcomes. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, and annotations handle the destructive nature, so no gaps remain.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose ('The version series ID (GUID) to delete'), format ('GUID'), and how to obtain it ('first call get_document_property...'). This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('Deletes') and resource ('an entire version series (all versions of a document) in the content repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_document_version (which deletes a single version) and delete_document (which isn't listed but would delete a document differently). It precisely defines what the tool does beyond just restating the name.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by specifying it deletes 'all versions of a document' and includes a prerequisite: 'If you don't have the version series ID, first call get_document_property...'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., delete_document_version for single versions), which prevents a perfect score.

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