delete_document

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that deletion is permanent and also deletes the generated PDF, which is a critical side effect. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a destructive operation, even though it lacks mention of ownership or permission requirements.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('delete') and clearly states the scope, including the generated PDF. There is no wasted wording.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: the action and its impact. However, it could add a note on how to confirm deletion (e.g., via response) or whether deletion is reversible, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 provides a description for document_id ('The ID of the document to delete'), and coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description does not add extra meaning, such as where to find the ID or any format constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('delete') and a resource ('document and its generated PDF'), which distinguishes it from non-destructive siblings like get_document_status. However, it does not differentiate from potential delete operations on other resources (e.g., snippets), but in this sibling context, it is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions (e.g., 'use only if you own the document'). It implies a use case (deleting a document) but doesn't specify prerequisites or warn against deleting documents in use.

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