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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the document stops appearing on the public project page for link holders, only the membership is removed, and it documents the idempotent no-op return (removed: false with wasInProject: false). It also flags that titles, summaries and viewer-supplied text are untrusted author-written content.

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-loaded with the core action and effect, then the scope limitation, then the return contract. Four sentences, all earning their place, though the trailing untrusted-content note is somewhat boilerplate and slightly dilutes the focus.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-shape responsibility and does explain the not-in-project case, which is the key non-obvious outcome. It does not cover permission requirements or other failure modes, but combined with rich annotations the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains docId, projectId and projectSlug including the pass-this-or-that relationship and where each id comes from. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Removes one document from a project") and immediately scopes the operation to the project membership, which cleanly distinguishes it from lnkdrp_delete_doc and lnkdrp_archive_doc. The effect on the project's public page is spelled out, so the agent knows exactly what changes.

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 gives clear context for when this is the right call: it removes only the membership, leaving the document, its share links, analytics and other projects intact — implicitly the alternative to a destructive document delete. However, it never names a sibling tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so routing still requires inference.

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