Șterge un document (reversibil)

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that deletion is reversible, that the file's address no longer responds, and that backlinks cause a refusal with a force override. This is valuable behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict the structured hints.

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, no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the refusal/force condition follows immediately, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the action, reversibility, and the guard condition. It does not detail return values or version mechanics, but those are not essential 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?

The schema describes 'nume' with a source and example, but leaves 'forteaza' undocumented. The tool description supplies the critical meaning of forteaza by tying it to the link-refusal override, compensating well for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 frames the action as moving a document between versions so its address stops responding, which clearly signals a reversible delete on a specific file resource. The title adds 'reversibil', distinguishing it from a permanent delete, though the phrasing is somewhat euphemistic and does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling 'sterge'.

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 provides one explicit usage condition: the tool refuses to act when a page or article links to the file, unless forteaza=true. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'sterge' or 'restaureaza', leaving that routing to the agent's inference from sibling names.

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