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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which would lead an agent to assume hard, irreversible deletion. The description corrects this by disclosing that the operation is reversible, that the document AND the payments settling it are moved to the bin together, and that list_binned/restore_deleted are the recovery tools. This is substantial behavior disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it deletes, what happens on deletion/recovery, and how to source the id. The core action is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the affected entity, side effects (payments moved too), reversibility, recovery tooling, and id sourcing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining that the id identifies a document and how to obtain it via list_documents by number or contact. It adds real meaning, though it doesn't specify id format (UUID vs numeric).

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (document), enumerates the document types covered (invoice, quote, credit note, debit note, bill), and scopes it to deletion by id. An agent can immediately distinguish it from delete_document_line, delete_expense, or delete_journal_entry.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow instruction ('Find the id yourself with list_documents (query by number or contact); never ask the user for an id') and points to the recovery path (list_binned, restore_deleted). It does not, however, state when not to use this tool — e.g. when only a single line should be removed via delete_document_line instead.

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