delete_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so irreversibility is partly redundant, but the description adds the ownership/authorization requirement (“you own”) and the practical consequence (must re-upload the file to restore), which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the irreversible warning, then the repair recipe, then args. Each part is useful, though the remediation sentence is slightly tangential to a caller intentionally deleting.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation; ownership, irreversibility, and parameter provenance are all covered for a two-parameter destructive call. Only ID format details are 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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains that agent_id must correspond to an owned agent and that document_id comes from list_documents, providing provenance guidance absent from the bare string schema. It still omits the expected ID format/pattern.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (document), plus the scope constraint (a Knowledge Agent you own), which separates it from sibling list_documents/read_document/upload_document. The remediation sentence also positions it relative to upload_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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use case (fixing a damaged document) and the alternative workflow (delete, then re-upload the original). It does not explicitly say when *not* to delete, e.g. versus a hypothetical replace/update path, but the routing intent is clear.

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