Delete Document

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by stating it's reversible and idempotent (no-op on already-trashed). The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the trash mechanism and the requirement for an open project. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and efficiently covers reversibility, no-op behavior, and prerequisites.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect (move to trash), reversibility, idempotency, and prerequisites. It is complete given the tool's complexity and the information already in annotations and schema.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of documentId. The description mentions 'valid document id' but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's description (which already specifies UUID format and source). The parameter meaning is adequately covered by the schema.

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 action: 'Move a document to the project trash.' It specifies the verb (move/delete) and resource (document) and distinguishes from permanent deletion by noting reversibility and the ability to restore via restore_document. The title 'Delete Document' might imply permanent removal, but the description clarifies it's a reversible move to trash, differentiating it from any potential permanent delete tool.

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 explicitly states prerequisites: 'Requires an open project and a valid document id.' It also notes that 'Deleting an already-trashed document is a no-op,' guiding the agent on when it's appropriate to invoke (only for non-trashed documents). Additionally, it references alternative actions like list_trash and restore_document, providing lifecycle context.

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