document_series_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not obligated to re-state the safety profile. Instead it adds the substantive precondition (deletion is refused if the series has been used), the downstream consequences of deleting (referential integrity and audit trail loss), and the remedial action. That is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the destructive nature before the constraint and the alternative. Each sentence carries distinct information: what it does, when it fails, what to do instead.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent, precondition, alternative, and consequence. The only untouched surface is the companyId override, which the schema already explains.

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%, with both uuid and companyId documented in the schema including the 'uses active company if not set' fallback, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail and, notably, never mentions companyId or the active-company override.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a document series') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by scope and consequence. An agent can tell it apart from document_series_update or document_series_set_default without opening any schema.

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 an explicit prohibition ('Cannot delete a series that has been used for any documents'), names the preferred alternative with the exact field to change ('marking as inactive (active=false)'), and states the only valid deletion case ('created by mistake and never used'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all present.

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