Delete tags, correspondents or types

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the exact nature of the destructive effect: associations are permanently removed while documents remain intact. It also surfaces the non-negotiable 'confirm: true' requirement, which is a critical behavioral condition for safe invocation.

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 succinct sentences front-load the primary action, then add the two most important qualifications: the effect on documents and the confirm requirement. No filler or duplication with schema descriptions.

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 destructive tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is deleted, what is not deleted, and the required confirmation. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without additional hidden guidance.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no new detail beyond the schema, though it does reinforce the confirm requirement via 'Requires confirm: true'. This matches the baseline for fully-described schemas.

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'), a precise set of resources ('tags, correspondents, document types or storage paths'), and clarifies the scope of the effect. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like paperless_create_object, paperless_update_object, and document-focused tools because it is the only one that deletes these metadata objects.

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 gives useful context about when not to use this tool: 'Documents themselves are not deleted, but they lose the association' tells the agent this does not remove documents. It also communicates the required confirmation. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for deleting documents or for listing objects to obtain ids.

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