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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond them: deletion happens 'directly after authorization' and includes removal 'from public Space content'. It does not mention irreversibility or propagation effects, but the additions are substantive.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the behavioral warning, then the parameter source and the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers trigger, behavior, parameter sourcing, and the disambiguating alternative. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both space_id and document_id are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a provenance hint that document_id comes from list-space-documents or search results, with no format or ID-sourcing detail beyond that.

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 ('delete one existing Space document/page') and immediately differentiates from siblings by naming delete-space-items for folders or bulk deletion. An agent can distinguish it from create-space-document, update-space-document, and get-space-document without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when the user explicitly wants to delete one existing Space document/page') and names the alternative for the adjacent case (delete-space-items for folders or bulk item deletion). It also tells the agent where to source the document ID (list-space-documents or search results), removing all inference.

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