Delete Document

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that deletion is reversible (not permanent), that it's idempotent (no-op if already trashed), and requires an open project and valid id. Annotations provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description elaborates fully without 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, each packing essential information: action, reversibility and no-op, and requirements. No redundant or filler content; it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the effect, prerequisites, and related tools. It does not detail error cases or response format, but for this tool, that is acceptable. Slight gap: no mention of what the tool returns, but no output schema exists.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions that documentId must be 'valid' and that an open project is required, but does not specify format or source for the ID. For a single required parameter, this is adequate but minimal, hence a score of 3.

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 to trash), specifies reversibility, and distinguishes from related tools like list_trash and restore_document. It explains the no-op behavior for already-trashed documents, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (move to trash) and prerequisites (open project, valid document id). It implies that permanent deletion is not achieved, but does not explicitly list alternative tools for permanent deletion. However, given siblings include restore_document and list_trash, the usage context is well established.

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