Delete RIS document

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing that the delete is a soft delete (server deactivates it, admin can restore), that it takes effect immediately with no undo, that the project is not marked changed, that a missing document returns ris_not_found, and that it runs as the desktop session login requiring the delete role. This is exactly the operational detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers side constraints, error behavior, counterpart tool, and auth requirement in compact clauses with no wasted sentences. Dense but efficient; slightly jammed into one paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description still covers the semantics an agent needs: soft-delete behavior, irreversibility, error case, permission requirement, and session context.

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 100% and documentId is already documented as coming from rillsoft_document_ris_list. The description only adds the scoping notion 'of the open project', so per the high-coverage baseline a 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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (one document of the open project in the RIS document management), and anchors it to a concrete UI surface ('the Delete button of the documents page'). It also names its counterpart rillsoft_document_ris_create, so an agent can distinguish it from create/update/get/list siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies (deleting a document from the open project via the documents page) and points to rillsoft_document_ris_create as the counterpart operation. It does not explicitly enumerate when NOT to use it (e.g., folder_ris_delete vs document deletion), so it falls just short of a 5.

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