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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing cascade behavior (all chunks removed) and the immediate search-visibility effect, plus the possibility of a needs_confirmation response. It stops short of explaining what the confirmation requires or whether the deletion is recoverable.

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 effect, then the id source, then the replace workflow. No filler; each sentence maps to a distinct decision an agent must make.

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 destructive single-document delete with full schema coverage and annotations, this provides everything needed: scope, source of the id, replacement alternative, and the confirmation possibility. No output schema exists, and the confirmation hint adequately pre-frames a non-standard response.

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 all four parameters including kbId, workspace, approvalId, and documentId are documented in the schema itself. The description's only parameter-adjacent note ('get the documentId from workbench_kb_documents_list') duplicates the schema's own wording for documentId, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 precise verb (removes) and resource (one ingested document and all its chunks), with scope narrowed to a single document rather than the whole knowledge base. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like workbench_kb_delete and workbench_kb_documents_list without needing to open a 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 routes the caller: get documentId from workbench_kb_documents_list, and to replace a document, remove it then workbench_kb_add_documents the new version. It also signals the confirmation flow via 'May return needs_confirmation', so both prerequisites and alternatives are covered.

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