delete_doc

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely behavioral fact beyond the schema: the operation is gated on an explicit confirmation flag. It does not say whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains, leaving the destructive-mutation risk largely unexplained.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The doubled backticks around confirm are cosmetic noise but do not bloat the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive mutation with zero annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits permissions, irreversibility, and the meaning of the two required ID parameters — significant gaps an agent would need before calling it safely.

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 should compensate. It documents only confirm (and only that it is required to be true), while board_id and item_id — both required — get no explanation of what they identify or how they interact (e.g. whether item_id must belong to board_id).

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 and resource ("Delete a doc format item"), which is better than a bare name restatement. But the doc/board item distinction is left unexplained while siblings delete_item, bulk_delete_items, and delete_board exist, so an agent cannot tell from this line alone what makes a "doc format item" different from a plain item.

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 only usage-like statement is "Requires confirm=true", which is a precondition rather than guidance. Nothing says when to pick delete_doc instead of delete_item or bulk_delete_items, nor what happens if the item is not a doc.

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