document_series_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job: states 'Permanently delete,' warns about referential integrity and audit trail implications, and explains the precondition (never used). The only gap is not describing the return value or error behavior, but the safety-critical constraints are well disclosed.

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 wasted words. Each sentence adds distinct value: the action, the constraint, and the recommended alternative. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately follows with critical constraints. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description handles the critical context well: permanence, referential integrity, audit trail, and the never-used precondition. It could mention error behavior on attempting to delete a used series, but the core decision-relevant information is covered. Almost complete for this tool type.

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 (uuid and companyId) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds the meaning of uuid (the target series to delete) implicitly, but doesn't add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. A baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool permanently deletes a document series, uses a specific verb (delete) plus resource (document series), and explicitly distinguishes it from alternative behaviors by stating it cannot delete used series and recommending marking as inactive instead. This differentiates it well from sibling tools like document_series_update, document_series_set_default, and document_series_create.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only delete if the series was created by mistake and never used.' It also explicitly identifies the alternative approach ('Consider marking as inactive (active=false) instead') and states the critical constraint (cannot delete series used for any documents). This is model guidance for use-vs-alternatives.

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