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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond that boolean with information an agent cannot get from structured fields: the deletion is permanent, view records are removed as part of it, and previously copied or downloaded content persists with recipients. The residual-content caveat is exactly the kind of irreversibility context that prevents a bad call.

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, no filler, and front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope before the parameter requirement and the caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral facts: permanence, scope of deletion, and leftover recipient copies. It does not mention error/not-found behavior or permission prerequisites beyond what the id schema implies, which is a minor omission.

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 50%: the id parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema (UUID of a document owned by the account), while confirm has no description. The description's statement that confirm must be true merely restates the schema's const:true constraint, adding no new meaning. Adequate but not additive.

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 (permanently delete a document) and adds the collateral scope — associated view records are deleted too. No sibling competes on the same verb, so an agent can immediately tell this is the hard-delete path rather than the milder unpublish_document or update_document.

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 gives one hard precondition ('the confirmation parameter must be true') but no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. With unpublish_document and update_document among the siblings, an agent would benefit from knowing when to hard-delete versus unpublish or archive, and no such framing is offered.

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