Delete a Mudbase document

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context with 'Permanently' and 'This cannot be undone', reinforcing the irreversibility and warning the agent of the consequence. It also specifies 'single document', clarifying the scope. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 short sentences with no redundant wording. The key action and the critical warning are front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple delete operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: the action, the irreversibility, and the scope. It could mention error handling or return values, but these are not necessary for the agent to invoke the tool correctly. The destructiveHint annotation covers the safety profile, so the description is complete enough.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters with clear definitions (projectId, collectionId, documentId). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'delete', the resource 'document', and the scope 'single' from a 'Mudbase collection'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_file or update_document, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied by the action, but there is no guidance on selection criteria or when not to use it. It is adequate but not explicit.

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