Coda Delete Doc

Does 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 genuinely new behavioral detail: the deletion cascades to all pages, tables, and data, and the operation is irreversible. It does not mention permissions or authorization needs, which limits it short of 5.

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 with the destructive scope front-loaded in the first line, followed by the consequence and the prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 not be explained. For a one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what it does, what it destroys, the irreversibility, and the verification step — nothing an agent needs to call 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents doc_id. The description adds no format, sourcing, or ID-resolution guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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') with the irreversible scope qualifier. This cleanly separates it from sibling deletion tools such as coda_delete_page, coda_delete_row, and coda_delete_folder, which all target different resources.

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 a concrete pre-call prerequisite — verify the doc name with coda_get_doc first — and names that sibling explicitly. It does not state when-not to use this tool (e.g. archival or unpublish alternatives), but the guidance it gives is actionable.

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