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 risk profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation detail, the required 'project_documents:write' scope, but says nothing about irreversibility or whether stored file content is destroyed.

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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word carries information.

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 destructive call with no output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential auth requirement and keying method. Only a note on irreversibility or cascade effects would make it fully self-contained.

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% for the single 'id' (UUID) parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 project document by ID'), which cleanly separates it from adjacent siblings like delete_project, delete_asset_document, and delete_project_document_folder_template. It is clear, though it does not explicitly call out the nearest alternatives.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context and names no alternatives. It states only the identifying key and the required scope, leaving the agent to infer that this is the destructive counterpart to get_project_document.

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