Delete a document from a File Search store. Use force=true to also delete associated chunks.
Delete a document from a File Search store. Use force=true to also delete associated chunks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | If true, also delete associated chunks | |
| document_name | Yes | Document resource name, e.g. "fileSearchStores/abc123/documents/doc456" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds the behavioral note that force=true also deletes associated chunks, which is important context beyond annotations. It doesn't cover permissions or irreversibility, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is solid.
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, zero waste, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key optional parameter behavior. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.
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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers purpose and the force behavior. It could mention that deletion is irreversible or what happens if the document doesn't exist, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the force parameter semantics (also delete associated chunks) and doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a document from a File Search store), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gemini_delete_store (which deletes a store) and gemini_get_document. An agent can immediately understand the operation.
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?
It gives clear guidance on when to use the force parameter, explaining that force=true deletes associated chunks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gemini_delete_store or provide conditions for deletion (e.g., prerequisites).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.