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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true; the description usefully clarifies that the 'destruction' is only a move to trash with full restorability, plus the accounting-program lockout. That is real added value, but it stops short of stating what the caller sees on success or on a blocked document, so the mutation's outcome remains implicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the key framing (soft delete, not permanent) before the edge cases, and every clause carries information. The final sentence is dense, packing both the accounting-program restriction and the 'cannot reject either' analogy into one line, which slightly hurts scanability.

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, non-read-only operation with no output schema, the definition covers reversibility, escalation limits, and the blocking condition. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'id' and even points to list_documents as its source. The description adds no format or lookup guidance beyond that, so 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 ('Presune doklad do kose') and immediately qualifies it as soft deletion, which distinguishes it from the sibling restore_document and from any hard-delete expectation. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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 names the condition that blocks use (documents already sent to Pohoda/ABRA Flexi cannot be trashed, mirroring the reject path) and the recovery alternative (restore_document). It also rules out permanent deletion via the assistant entirely, so there is no ambiguity about trying to escalate.

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