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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the deletion cascades to all revisions and requires admin privileges. Annotations already cover destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description's contribution is the blast radius and auth requirement, which are the most decision-relevant facts here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the permanent/cascading nature, then precondition, then the safer alternative. 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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers destruction scope, auth, and reversibility. Only the fallback to a sibling archive tool is left implicit.

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 tenant_slug description already explains the multi-workspace omission rule in detail. The description adds nothing about document_id or tenant_slug beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a document and all its revisions'), including the cascade scope that distinguishes it from a plain document delete. An agent can immediately separate this from kb_documents_archive.

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 clear when-not path ('archive first if in doubt') and a precondition ('Admin-only'), which routes the agent away from this tool in ambiguous cases. It stops short of naming kb_documents_archive explicitly or describing confirmation/idempotency expectations, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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