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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: an authorization prerequisite and the fact that Assinafy enforces which documents may be deleted, implying server-side rejection paths.

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?

Two tight sentences with the authorization guard front-loaded, followed by the state-inspection prerequisite. 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?

Covers the key risks for a destructive, non-idempotent operation (authorization, state check, server-side restrictions) with no output schema to explain. It could note irreversibility or the failure response, but is largely complete for a one-parameter delete.

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% with a single well-described document_id parameter. The description adds no format, source, or retrieval guidance for the ID, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a document') that precisely identifies the operation. It is the only delete-style tool among siblings, so an agent can distinguish it, though the description doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 precondition ('only when the user's instruction explicitly authorizes deletion') and a sequencing rule ('Inspect its current state first'). It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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