Delete Document

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the reversible trash operation, the no-op for already-trashed documents, and the requirement for an open project and valid document ID. Annotations already declare idempotent and destructive hints, and the description enriches understanding 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 concise with three front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second elaborates on reversibility and related tools, and the third gives prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple reversible deletion tool, covering core behavior, safety (reversibility), and prerequisites. It does not mention the force parameter, but schema coverage is 100% so the agent can retrieve it. Minor gap but overall good completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add information about parameters beyond what is in the schema (e.g., the force parameter is not mentioned). It meets the baseline but provides no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 tool moves a document to the project trash, distinguishing it from other document operations and trash-related siblings like list_trash and restore_document. It also clarifies the no-op behavior for already-trashed documents, providing specific verb and resource context.

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 explains the reversible nature and mentions related tools (list_trash, restore_document), giving implied usage guidance. It states prerequisites (open project, valid document id) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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