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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the recovery mechanism: the deletion becomes a git commit carrying your reason, so it can be restored. It doesn't state what happens to inbound links or whether deletion is immediate, but the key reversibility trait is clearly communicated.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the purpose plus the two alternative routes are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by covering purpose, recoverability, and routing.

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 only two fully documented parameters, no output schema needed, and annotations covering the safety profile, this description gives an agent everything required to call it correctly: intent, required rationale, reversibility, and alternatives.

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%, so both path and message are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that message is the deletion rationale ('with your reason'), which is marginal added meaning over the schema's 'Why it is being deleted (required)'. Baseline 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 ('Delete a document') with the qualifying condition 'obsolete or duplicated', so the agent knows exactly what this does and when it's appropriate. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming kb_write and kb_move explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria (obsolete or duplicated) and two concrete alternatives with selection conditions: kb_write mode=update 'if it is mostly still right' and kb_move to archive/. Nothing is left to inference.

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