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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key trait: deletion is permanent and NOT reversible. It does not cover permission requirements, whether the file is removed from storage vs. unlinked, or error behavior, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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, zero filler, with the irreversible nature front-loaded ahead of the approval prerequisite. Nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the risk profile and the required workflow gate. Only minor gaps remain (permissions, failure modes), which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (lead id, document id) are documented as UUIDs in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable at this coverage level but warrants the baseline 3.

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 file from a lead card'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from delete_crm_lead (whole lead) and remove_agent_document (agent knowledge base). The scope 'from a lead card' pins down the ownership context.

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?

Explicit gating condition: 'Only call after the user approved preview_delete_crm_lead_document' names the required prior tool and the human-approval precondition. This is a concrete when-to-use rule rather than implied usage.

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