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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further: irreversibility ('kan inte återställas'), the specific business rule blocking deletion (documents tied to invoices or inbox items return an error), the required permission (manage_documents), and the response shape (ok: true).

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 destructive action and trigger condition, then layers in alternatives, error rule, and permission. Every sentence carries actionable content, though the description is on the longer side for a single-parameter tool.

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 mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers trigger, alternatives, reversibility, failure conditions, permissions, and the return value. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents doc_id type, example value, and the list_documents retrieval hint. The description repeats that hint rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Raderar ett dokument ur bolagets dokumentarkiv permanent') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming edit_document and list_documents. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

Explicit trigger condition ('Använd bara när användaren uttryckligen vill ta bort dokumentet'), named alternatives for the non-delete cases ('använd edit_document'), and a prerequisite ('hitta doc_id med list_documents'). Exclusions are also spelled out.

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