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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is permanent, that the file remains in storage, and that the operation requires explicit human confirmation — 'never fill in confirm/confirmation_phrase on your own initiative.' This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The most important constraint (permanent deletion) comes first, followed by the storage caveat and the human-confirmation requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive reference-removal tool, the description covers the core consequences and the mandatory safety condition. It omits details like error behavior or what happens if the document row does not exist, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 67%, and the description meaningfully reinforces the two confirmation-related parameters by forbidding the agent from supplying confirm or confirmation_phrase autonomously. It does not add detail about document_id, but that parameter's purpose is already evident from the tool's name and format.

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 precise action and resource: 'PERMANENTLY delete a project document ROW.' It goes beyond the name by clarifying the scope and its boundary ('the uploaded file itself stays in storage'), which distinguishes it from deleting the file or deleting an entire project.

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 operational context: this tool only removes the reference and does not free storage, so an agent can infer it is for reference removal rather than file deletion. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use condition, which prevents a 5.

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