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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the operation is IRREVERSIBLE, it cascades to child content, and it will fail unless the document was archived in the app first. It also discloses the error behavior, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the irreversibility warning is front-loaded, followed by the precondition and the intended use case. Every sentence carries decision-relevant 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the cascade effect, the precondition, and the failure mode — everything an agent needs to avoid an accidental or doomed call.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The archived document UUID to delete'. The description reinforces the archival constraint but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Permanently delete a document') plus the full cascade scope (items, columns, trace links, versions), which separates it from sibling mutations like traceable_doc_update_meta or traceable_doc_rename_prefix.

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 an explicit precondition ('only a document that has been ARCHIVED may be deleted — archive it in the app first'), the consequence of ignoring it ('otherwise this returns an error'), and the intended scenario ('remove a superseded document after replacing it'). This is exactly when-to-use and when-not guidance.

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