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 carried structurally. The description adds the write-scope requirement, which is behavioral context not present in the annotations. It stops short of describing cascade effects or irreversibility beyond what destructiveHint implies.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource before the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly: what it deletes, how it is identified, and the required authorization scope. Return behavior is not described, but nothing is expected to be returned.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Document ID' plus UUID format and pattern), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource pair ('Delete an infrastructure asset document by ID'), which is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling delete_* tools by the resource noun. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as delete_infrastructure_asset or delete_infrastructure_asset_comment beyond the noun itself.

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 names the required scope (infrastructure_asset_documents:write), which is genuine prerequisite guidance. It gives no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use context and names no alternative (e.g., that update_infrastructure_asset_document exists for modifications rather than removal).

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