Delete a doc from a workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deletion behavior and extension-insensitive matching, and mentions the return shape. However, it does not state irreversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the title is not found, which would be valuable for a destructive tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and matching rule, then explains the use case and return value.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, matching semantics, purpose, and return shape. It lacks failure behavior and irreversibility details, but is otherwise sufficient for 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by clarifying that matching is 'extension-insensitive' and that the title is the canonical title, going beyond the schema's 'Exact canonical doc title to delete.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the embedded doc whose canonical title matches (extension-insensitive).' It clearly distinguishes this deletion/forgetting tool from siblings like rag_find, rag_search, rag_write, and rag_create_workspace.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Used when a doc is split or retired so the stale title leaves no retrievable embedding.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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