delete_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the fact of deletion and the return format; it does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, cascading effects, or whether deletion is a hard delete/archive. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args list, and a Returns line. There is no redundant language or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, the description provides the essential input and return type. However, it omits behavioral safeguards such as permissions, irreversibility, and error behavior. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return fields, but the missing safety context keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, but the description compensates by naming document_id and explaining its role: 'The document ID to delete.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. It could provide more context about where the ID comes from, but for a single parameter it is sufficient.

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 begins with a direct verb-object statement: 'Delete a document from IT Glue.' It clearly identifies the resource and action, and the destructive verb distinguishes it from get_document, create_document, update_document, and list_documents among the siblings. The Args/Returns structure reinforces the purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the required document_id, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_document or get_document, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description does not state that this should be used for permanent removal or caution about destructiveness.

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