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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the action is recoverable via the recycle bin with manager restore, and it is a governed operation blocked unless an admin enables the policy. This is exactly the kind of prerequisite/aftermath detail annotations cannot 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then recoverability, then the governance gate. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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-param delete with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (admin policy, write access), denial behavior, and recoverability, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage (documentId already described as the WorkspaceDocument id to delete), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Delete a workspace document'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_project, delete_task, and delete_workspace_table. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: an org admin must enable the governed operation and the caller needs write access, otherwise the call is denied. It does not name alternatives or contrasts (e.g., archive vs delete, or using list_recycle_bin), but the gating context is explicit.

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