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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that the document and its settling payments are moved to the bin together, that list_binned shows them, and that restore_deleted brings them back. This enriches the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations with concrete outcomes and recovery steps.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, then provides critical behavioral details (reversibility and bin) efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 fully covers what an agent needs to know to call this tool: the effect (delete and move to bin), the associated payments, and how to reverse it. With no output schema, no return value explanation is needed, and the behavioral details are complete for safe usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' but does not elaborate on the id format, source, or any constraints. Since the only parameter is a required string id, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a document' and specifies the resource types (invoice, quote, credit note, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_document_line and delete_expense. The verb+resource structure is unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool by noting reversibility and the bin system, implicitly guiding an agent that deletion is not permanent and can be undone via restore_deleted. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

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