unfile_document

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a GraphQL API and return values (folder id or ToolError), but does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or affects related objects. This lack of context leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes parameter documentation and return info in a structured way. Minor redundancy exists (repeating 'If not provided, an error will be returned' for both parameters), but overall efficient.

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 simple unfiling tool, the description covers core functionality but lacks context about when it is applicable (e.g., document must be filed, not checked out). It does not reference sibling tools or provide failure scenarios beyond 'ToolError.' The presence of an output schema suggests return structure is documented elsewhere, which reduces need, but completeness is adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations add considerable value. It explains that 'folder_id_or_path' is the folder identifier and 'document_id' is the document identifier, and notes that both are required. This goes 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 tool's purpose: 'Unfile a document from a folder in the content repository.' It uses a specific verb (unfile) and specific resource (document from folder), and contrasts well with sibling tools like file_document.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the document must be filed or checked in, nor does it differentiate use cases from other folder/document tools.

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