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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the URL disappears, revisions remain in the database but are not shown, and the deletion action must be signed.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by signing requirements and deletion effects. Every sentence adds relevant information without repetition or filler.

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 destructive, signature-gated deletion tool with seven parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition does not explain how to construct the required signature fields or what kind/timestamp/nonce mean. It covers target selection and post-deletion behavior but leaves important invocation details 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that exactly one of documentId or commentId is used and that the signed action is 'delete', but it leaves five required authentication/signing parameters (publicKey, kind, timestamp, nonce, signature) unexplained.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: delete your own Markdown document, spreadsheet, or comment. It makes the scope clear (own content only) and inherently distinguishes this action from create/edit/read siblings.

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?

It provides some usage constraints: the item must be yours and exactly one of documentId or commentId identifies the target. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as edit_markdown/edit_spreadsheet or how to handle cases where both IDs are present.

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