delete_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and it requires human confirmation before execution. It omits auth/permission requirements, idempotency, and what happens to the parent transfer or deposit, which keeps it below 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed immediately by the destructive warning. No filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision inputs: what it removes, from what, and that it is irreversible and needs human sign-off. Remaining gaps (auth needs, response shape, effect on the parent record) are minor but real.

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%, so all three parameters (on, documentId, transactionId) are already documented in the schema, including the enum and where IDs come from. The description's phrase 'from a transfer or a payment route deposit' merely restates the `on` enum, adding no new meaning; baseline 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 (Remove) and resource (a document) and scopes it to two container types (transfer or payment route deposit), which separates it from add_document, list_documents, and get_document_download_url. It does not explicitly name or route against any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the object scope; there is no explicit when-to-use versus an alternative. The one concrete guideline given — 'confirm with a human first' — is a workflow prerequisite rather than a selection rule, so this is minimum-viable guidance.

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