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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose that the operation is a soft-delete and that deleted documents remain visible via host.docs.list with 'since' and deleted: true, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions required, or side effects beyond visibility, which are important for a mutation operation with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single, practically worded sentence that front-loads the action and key conditions. It conveys the most important behavioral nuance (soft-delete, still visible) without any fluff. Every word 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, all optional, and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior and how to find deleted docs, but given no annotations, it could have elaborated on permissions or reversibility. However, the schema is clear and the description is adequate for a simple soft-delete operation; it is not highly complex, so a 3 is reasonable.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter (id, name, tenant_key). The description adds minimal extra meaning by explaining the id/name relationship (use one or the other) and tenant_key's role, but it mostly restates what the schema says. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to add much more.

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 clearly states the verb ('soft-delete') and the resource ('document'), and specifies it can be done by id or name. It distinguishes from siblings like host.docs.purge (hard delete) and host.docs.put (create/update) by indicating soft-delete behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all potential document-related tools, but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to soft-delete a document) and hints at the alternative of using host.docs.list with 'since' to see deleted docs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like host.docs.purge for permanent deletion or host.docs.put for creating/updating. It provides some context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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