Delete Document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, and idempotentHint: false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning the WebSocket wait and separate reporting of workspace-metadata and content deletion. No contradiction exists; it enriches safety understanding.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and outcome granularity, the second provides a critical safety warning and alternative. No redundancy or filler.

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 destructive nature, the description covers the key decision point (when to use vs. revoke_doc), the operation's outcome reporting, and the schema fully documents all parameters. With annotations and an output schema present, nothing critical is missing.

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%, with each parameter (docId, workspaceId, confirmDocId) already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-level details, but the schema carries the burden effectively, so a baseline 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 specifies a clear action ('Delete a document'), the resource, and a unique behavioral detail (waiting for WebSocket outcome and reporting workspace-metadata vs content deletion separately). It explicitly distinguishes itself from revoke_doc, a sibling that removes public access only.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool vs. an alternative: 'use revoke_doc when you only need to remove public access.' This is a direct usage directive with a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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