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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key destructive facts: the operation is permanent and removes both the document and its extraction data. It also reveals the conditional 'where the plan retains documents' behavior. It omits auth/scope requirements and what happens if the document was already discarded.

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 tight sentences with the destructive verb and scope front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining when the tool is warranted. The trailing clause 'where the plan retains documents' is slightly cryptic and could have been phrased more plainly.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: permanence, what data is destroyed, and the explicit-request condition. Missing only error/edge behavior and confirmation expectations, which are minor here.

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 document id returned by extract_document'; the description only echoes 'by id'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or source detail beyond it.

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 one stored document and its extraction data') plus a scoping condition ('where the plan retains documents'), so the agent immediately knows this is an irreversible delete of a document row and its derived extraction. It does not name any sibling tool, but no sibling could be mistaken for a delete, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 second sentence gives a clear selection rule: default retention already discards, so this tool is only for explicit 'forget it now' requests. That effectively communicates when not to call it, though it names no alternative tool and does not spell out prerequisite permissions.

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