coda_delete_docPermanently delete a Coda doc and all its pages, tables, and data. Irreversible; verify the doc first, then confirm deletion status.
Permanently delete a Coda doc.
This is irreversible — the doc and all its pages, tables, and data will be permanently removed. Verify the doc name with coda_get_doc before calling this. Returns a confirmation status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | The ID of the doc to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.4.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it spells out the blast radius (pages, tables, data), confirms irreversibility, and notes a confirmation status is returned.
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 short sentences, each earning its place: action, warning/blast radius, precondition. The irreversible warning is front-loaded where it matters most.
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 an irreversible single-parameter mutation, the description covers the action, the consequence, the safe pre-check, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 100% with a single well-documented doc_id parameter. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Permanently delete a Coda doc'), which is clearly distinct from sibling page/row/folder delete tools. The adverb 'Permanently' immediately scopes the operation.
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 — verify the doc name with coda_get_doc before calling — which routes the agent through a safe read step. It does not name when *not* to use it versus other delete siblings, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.