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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds auth context the annotations lack (the required contract_documents:write scope), which is genuinely useful. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is soft or permanent or what the response is, keeping it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action and resource are front-loaded and the prerequisite follows immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter delete with full annotation coverage, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the action, identifier, and permission requirement. It would be complete with a note on reversibility or cascade behavior, but nothing essential for invocation 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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a UUID in the schema. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or lookup details beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Delete a contract document by ID'), which cleanly separates it from delete_contract, delete_contract_site, and delete_asset_document. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer in edge cases, so it falls short of the differentiating 5.

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?

The description gives a precondition ('Requires contract_documents:write scope') but no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to delete, and no pointer to alternatives such as update_contract_document. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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