Document Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: local downloaded copies survive deletion, repeating the call is idempotent in effect yet may return a not-found error (clarifying the idempotentHint), there is no undo, and the return shape distinguishes success, tool-body failures, and MCP schema errors. This meaningfully enriches what the annotations alone convey and does not contradict them.

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 dense but not bloated; each of its seven sentences earns its place (purpose, sibling routing, permissions, destructiveness, idempotency caveat, undo absence, return contract). The core purpose is front-loaded before caveats. It is slightly long, but for a destructive, irreversible operation the thoroughness is justified.

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 destructive tool with one parameter, the description is complete: it covers the action, cascade effect on share links, permission context, error/return contract, and irreversibility. The output schema exists and the description still explains the {ok:true,data} vs {ok:false,error} contract, which is more than sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains that document_id is a 'Document asset ID to remove globally, including all campaign sharing links; not a single link ID.' The description reinforces this via the document_unshare contrast but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a document asset and all of its share links.' It explicitly differentiates itself from document_unshare ('remove only one campaign link') and document_read ('inspect content first'), making the tool's scope unmistakable without needing to inspect siblings.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use document_unshare when only one campaign link must be removed, and use document_read to inspect content before deleting. It also states that permission enforcement is handled upstream. An agent knows exactly when to pick this tool over its siblings.

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