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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's confirmation of permanence adds value. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that nested pages are 'lifted to its own place rather than deleted,' which is a non-obvious behavioral consequence. This is valuable context beyond the structured hints.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the nested-page behavior is stated efficiently, and the alternative tool is mentioned in a separate sentence. Every word serves a purpose.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations already covering destructive behavior, the description covers the key aspects: permanence, nested-page handling, and the archive alternative. It does not mention permissions or other side effects, but those are not necessary for a simple delete operation given the annotations and schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('A document id, or its exact title'). The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, so it relies on the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 primary action—'Delete a document permanently'—which matches the title and adds the specific nuance of permanence. It also differentiates from the sibling archive_doc by naming it explicitly and contrasting the outcomes. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use archive_doc to hide a document instead of destroying it.' This directly instructs the agent to choose the appropriate sibling based on intent, making the usage context unambiguous.

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