Delete IT Glue Document Image

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

Even though destructiveHint=true already signals destructive behavior, the description adds substantial specifics: all size variants are removed, the action cannot be undone, stale <img> tags survive until the section is next saved, and the section-update mitigation. This far exceeds what the annotations alone 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the critical permanence warning is front-loaded, and the orphaned-reference caveat plus remediation earn their 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 single-required-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers what gets destroyed, irreversibility, downstream side effects on section HTML, and the explicit cleanup action. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions (image_id as the target, document_id as optional index refresh). The free-text description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'PERMANENTLY delete a document image (all size variants)'. The all-variants detail and the resource type distinguish it from sibling deletes like delete_document_section, delete_documents, and delete_attachment.

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 makes the deletion context explicit and gives clear follow-up guidance: broken <img> references persist until the section is saved, and itglue_update_document_section should be used for an immediate clean result. It stops short of formally listing when-not-to-use or alternative deletion paths.

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