Delete Documents

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds real substance beyond them: deleted IDs cannot be reused for later retrieval or exports, local input/exported files are untouched, and repeat deletion is a no-op whose returned boolean may still change. That last note directly explains an idempotency nuance 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?

Front-loads the action and the ID disambiguation, then layers preconditions, side effects, and idempotency. Five sentences, each carrying distinct information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 no explanation, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: correct ID type, deletion preconditions, irreversibility for downstream retrieval, scope of deletion, and repeat-call behavior.

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?

The description sharply clarifies what document_ids must be (not task IDs, export job IDs, or paths), adding meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Suparse document IDs to delete.' However, api_url is undocumented in both schema and description, so with 50% coverage the description only partly compensates for the gap.

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 ('Delete documents from Suparse') and immediately disambiguates the ID domain from siblings: 'using document IDs, not task IDs, export job IDs, or local paths.' An agent can distinguish this from get_task_results, download_results, or export tools 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 precondition gate: 'Use only when deletion or cleanup is requested, after confirming any required results are safely saved.' Clear on when to invoke, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative (e.g. 'to retrieve instead, use get_task_results') by name.

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