Delete document type

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds important behavioral nuance beyond that: the deletion is permanent, documents retain existence but lose the assignment, the assignment cannot be restored, and user confirmation is required. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure that helps an agent safely invoke a destructive operation.

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?

Two short sentences carry the essential information: what the operation does, its permanence, its side effect on documents, and the confirmation requirement. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the critical operational facts: permanence, irreversibility, side effects on associated documents, and user confirmation. Nothing needed to safely invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter or map it explicitly to the document type being deleted. The parameter name and tool context make it inferable, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation as required by the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a document type.' It also distinguishes itself from document deletion by stating 'Documents are not deleted, but they lose this assignment,' which is especially helpful given sibling tools like delete_documents and update_document_type.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a document type should be permanently removed. It adds a strong usage requirement by saying 'Confirm with the user first,' and clarifies that the deletion does not remove documents. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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