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

The description discloses that this is a destructive, state-changing action that deletes the document directly after authorization. While destructiveHint=true already signals danger, the description adds meaningful context about direct deletion and the need for an explicit ID from a prior lookup.

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 with no wasted words: when to use, what happens, and where the required ID comes from. The most critical warning ('destructive') is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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?

With only two well-documented parameters, destructiveHint=true annotations, a clear usage trigger, and a named alternative for nearby cases, nothing essential is missing. The description fully equips an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds extra value by explaining where document_id must come from (list-space-documents or search results), which is provenance information beyond the schema's type and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete'), a precise resource ('one existing Space document/page'), and immediately distinguishes itself from delete-space-items for folders or bulk deletion. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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 states exactly when to use it ('when the user explicitly wants to delete one existing Space document/page'), specifies the required ID source (list-space-documents or search results), and explicitly routes folder/bulk deletion to delete-space-items. This gives clear selection guidance with no ambiguity.

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