outline_delete_documentRemoves a document from an Outline workspace by ID; by default it moves to trash, or use permanent to delete it entirely.
Delete a document. Args: id (required), permanent (default false — moves to trash when false).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id | |
| permanent | No | Permanently delete instead of trashing |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not convey: that the default operation is a reversible move to trash rather than an irreversible destruction. It stops short of noting auth requirements or restore paths for trashed documents.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the parameter essentials. Nothing extraneous, and the reversible-default detail is placed where an agent will read it.
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 delete tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essential default-vs-permanent distinction. It is slightly thin on consequences (what happens to a trashed document, whether the id remains valid), but nothing blocks 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default and meaning of permanent. The description's 'id (required), permanent (default false — moves to trash when false)' largely restates the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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') and resource ('a document') with no ambiguity. It is cleanly separable from siblings like outline_update_document, outline_move_document, or outline_get_document.
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 the key decision — default call trashes, permanent=true hard-deletes — which is real usage guidance for the tool's only flag. However, it never addresses when to delete at all versus alternatives such as trashing via update or moving a document, nor any prerequisites/permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.