postmd_delete_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explains key behavioral traits: deletion is recoverable for 30 days before permanent purge, and an API key with documents:write is required. It does not mention idempotency or the outcome for non-existent documents, but for a single-parameter delete operation this is useful and goes beyond a bare 'Delete a document' statement.

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 contain all necessary information: the operation, the ownership constraint, the recovery window, and the required permission. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler.

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 tool with one string parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main operational context: what is deleted, who may delete it, the retention period, and the required API permission. It is not fully complete because it omits what happens after deletion, such as the success response or error behavior, but this is a minor gap.

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 input schema merely defines docCode as a string with no description, and the description does not explain docCode, its format, or how to obtain it. With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, though the parameter name is reasonably self-explanatory as a document identifier.

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 action 'Delete', the resource 'a document', and the ownership constraint 'you own'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like postmd_delete_note (deletes a note) and postmd_update_document (modifies rather than deletes). The verb-resource pair is specific and 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 phrase 'a document you own' implies the tool is intended for owned documents only, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as postmd_delete_note or postmd_update_document. There is no mention of what to do when the document is not owned or when a different operation is appropriate. This leaves usage context largely implicit.

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