delete_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Delete a document' without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), error conditions, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations in a structured 'Args:' section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter section could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety concerns, error handling, or output expectations (despite having an output schema). For a delete operation in a system with siblings like 'cancel_document', more context is needed to guide proper use.

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 description adds basic semantics by explaining that 'doctype' is an 'ERPNext DocType name' and 'name' is a 'Document name/ID', which provides context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't detail format constraints, examples, or relationships between parameters, leaving the agent to guess valid values.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_document' and 'update_document' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cancel_document' which might be a related destructive operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_document' or 'update_document'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., document state), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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