ms_delete_document

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the need for two confirmations and describes the return format (success response or error). Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description enhances understanding without contradiction.

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 (two main sentences plus a structured Args/Returns block). It front-loads the purpose and warning, then lists parameters and output. Every part is useful and no unnecessary text.

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?

With annotations marking destructive behavior and the description covering purpose, parameters, and response, the tool is well-defined. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming the confirmation parameters, but the description's warning suffices. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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 description must compensate. It lists the two required parameters (doc_type, doc_id) and provides an explicit enumeration of valid doc_type values. It also implies the two boolean confirmation parameters by stating 'requires both confirmations,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's default values.

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 action ('DELETE a document'), the resource (document), and provides an example ('remove a test draft'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ms_create_document or ms_get_documents by emphasizing deletion and destructive nature.

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 mentions the tool is destructive and requires confirmations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide when-not scenarios. The context implies deletion tasks, but lacks explicit guidance.

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