delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one important behavior: the call 'Returns immediately' while the daemon removes chunks in the background. However, it does not disclose the destructive/permanent nature of deletion or possible failure/error behavior, which is significant for a delete tool.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and then gives the async behavior before a scannable Args list. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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 an output schema and a relatively simple three-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, async timing, and all argument semantics. It leaves out irreversibility and error-handling details, but these are not essential for a basic delete invocation.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters: name, kind with its allowed values, and collection with its conditional scope. It adds the relationship that collection only applies to kind='document', which the schema does not express.

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 clear use-case: remove stale or wrong content before re-ingesting it. The Args section identifies the target resources as documents or collections, making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no sibling duplicates this delete 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('stale or wrong content before re-ingesting it') and explains why deletion is needed prior to re-ingestion. It does not list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for the provided sibling set.

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