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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: deletion is permanent and irreversible, the associated file is also deleted, and only certain document statuses are eligible. Combined with the annotations' destructiveHint=truearen't, these details give an agent a clear picture of side effects and prerequisites.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences cover action, constraints, and required procedure without repetition. No filler content; every sentence adds operational value.

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 destructive tool with one required parameter sesami, the description covers purpose, side effects (file deletion), preconditions (status), and workflow (get_document first, user confirmation). It does not mention error cases or permissions, but given the low complexity and rich annotations, the operational picture is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single documentId parameter with 100% coverageikuha. The description adds indirect context by saying to call get_document first, but it doesn't explain how documentId is validated, formatted, or whether it could be a list. It stays at the baseline for parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a document.' It also clarifies what is deleted ('the associated file') and the irreversible nature, making the tool's exact purpose unambiguous even without seeing the tool name.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: only documents with status 'completed' or 'revoked' can be deleted. It also specifies a required workflow: call get_document first and ask the user for confirmation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like delete_draft or revoke_document as alternatives, but the workflow guidance is clear and actionable.

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