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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description goes far beyond by explaining that account-owned types are hard-deleted while fynk-provided types are merely deactivated and can be restored via update-account-document-type with reactivate:true. It also warns that customised types lose customisation and that in-use types are refused with a usage count.

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?

Front-loads the action and then organizes the rest into a usage trigger, parameter provenance, behavioral consequences, and a failure mode. Slightly long with an awkward single-item bullet list, but almost every sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers prerequisites, the delete-vs-deactivate distinction, the customisation caveat, and the in-use refusal, which is everything an agent needs to call this correctly and set user expectations.

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% and already documents the single uuid parameter's source, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying the parameter to a required disambiguation step ('the user must have made clear which type they mean') and restating the provenance from list-account-document-types, which shapes how the agent must gather the value.

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 ('Remove a document type from the account') and immediately scopes it to both account-owned types and fynk system types. An agent can distinguish this from update-account-document-type and list-account-document-types without opening any schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('The user explicitly asks to delete or remove a document type') and adds disambiguation rules: the user must have made clear which type, and if not, ask and offer candidates by name. This is real when-to-use and how-to-proceed guidance rather than vague context.

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