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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that this is a soft delete, meaning the document is not permanently destroyed and can be restored. It also discloses the immediate access loss for the agent, providing useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Soft-delete a knowledge document') and immediately providing valuable behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers the essential behavioral context (soft-delete semantics, restoration path, immediate access loss). It is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (documentId as 'Knowledge document ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning for the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('soft-delete') and resource ('a knowledge document'), and distinguishes it from the related restore tool by noting that the document can be restored. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explains the practical effect (immediate loss of access) and explicitly mentions the alternative restore tool, implying when to use it (when a soft delete is desired) and how to undo it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for permanent deletion), so it falls short of full guidance.

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