Delete document

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: deletion is reversible via trash, recovery is time-limited, and user confirmation is required. This is exactly the kind of nuance that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the recovery behavior follows naturally, and the safety instruction earns its place. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter destructive action, the description covers the operation, recovery semantics, retention caveat, and a usage rule. There is no output schema to explain, and the annotation set carries the destructive flag, so nothing essential is missing.

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 has one required `id` parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. 'Move a document' implies the id refers to the document to trash, but the description never explicitly states that `id` identifies the target document. For a single obvious integer parameter this is acceptable but still indirect.

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 states a specific verb ('Move to trash') and resource ('a document'), making it immediately clear this is a soft-delete operation rather than a permanent destructive delete. It also distinguishes itself from trash-related siblings like empty_trash by clarifying recovery behavior.

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 gives clear usage context: the document stays recoverable until the trash is emptied or a retention period expires, and it mandates user confirmation. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like delete_documents or restore_from_trash, but the soft-delete framing is sufficient guidance for most cases.

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