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

The description reveals a key behavioral nuance: deletion is actually a move to trash, not a permanent erase. This adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation, which only signals destructiveness. It doesn't mention reversible/restore behavior explicitly, but the 'move to trash' phrase implies recoverability, which is helpful context.

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 a single, tight sentence with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded ('Delete'), and the clarifying note about trash is included without clutter. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 simple single-parameter delete tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the essential action and a crucial behavioral detail. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could have briefly noted that it operates on documents (not files) or contrasted with bulk operations, but the name and description already make the target resource clear.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (document_id) with 100% coverage. The description merely restates the ID concept without adding new semantic details such as format, origin, or validation. Given schema coverage is high, a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('document') with a clarifying parenthetical ('move to trash') that adds precision. It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like empty_trash or permanent deletion, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_file, bulk_trash_files, or delete_note. It doesn't mention occasions when this tool is the right choice or when a sibling should be used instead, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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