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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses irreversibility ('FINAL'), absence of recovery ('no trash'), cascading deletion of all versions, and when the effect takes hold ('Iris stops reading it from the next draft on'). It does not mention permission requirements or what happens with an invalid/stale doc_id, which is the remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive consequence, then the recovery caveat, then the alternative. No filler and nothing that restates the title.

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 one-parameter delete with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the information an agent needs to decide and act: destructiveness, scope, timing, and the safer alternative. Missing only error/permission behavior, a minor gap at this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the id comes from list_knowledge. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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+resource ('takes a doc out of the playbook') and immediately qualifies the scope: every version the doc ever had. It is unmistakably distinct from update_knowledge and from create_knowledge, which appear in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when the intent is merely stale content: 'A doc that is merely out of date is better rewritten with update_knowledge.' That names the alternative and the condition selecting it, which is the strongest form of guidance.

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