delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key async trait: 'Returns immediately — the daemon removes chunks in the background.' However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or what exactly happens when deleting a collection, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear first sentence, a behavioral note, and a concise Args block. Every line contributes useful information without verbosity.

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 relatively simple destructive tool with 3 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior, parameters, and async processing well. It doesn't address edge cases like idempotency or nonexistent names, but the output schema can provide return details. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with semantics and constraints: 'name' is the document/collection name, 'kind' is document/collection, and 'collection' is optional and only for documents. This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool's verb and resource: 'Delete indexed data for a document or collection.' It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list' (which lists) and 'ingest' (which adds data).

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 implies usage when deletion is needed, and the Args section adds parameter-level guidance (e.g., 'collection' only for kind='document'). However, it does not explicitly note when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, such as handling of missing names.

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