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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion is a soft mark rather than a purge, and there is a plan-then-confirm flow. It is slightly ambiguous about whether omitting confirm (default false) is what triggers the plan call.

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, no filler, and the most important facts (soft delete, confirm requirement) are front-loaded before any elaboration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation semantics and confirmation gate. The only gap is the precise behavior of the first (unconfirmed) call versus an explicit confirm=false.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the non-obvious 'confirm' parameter and its default-false plan behavior, but says nothing about doc_id or household_id beyond the surrounding sentence implying household scoping.

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 (Delete) and resource (a household's document), plus the exact outcome: the document is marked DELETED and no longer listed. That soft-delete framing distinguishes it clearly from update_document and list_documents.

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?

Explains the required two-step invocation: confirm must be true, and the first call returns a plan. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g. update_document for corrections), but for a delete tool the when-to-use is self-evident and the sequencing guidance is the critical part.

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