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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The word 'Permanently' adds a mild nuance about irreversibility, but it largely restates what destructiveHint already conveys, and nothing is said about permissions, cascading effects, or error behavior when the doc_id is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb and resource at the front and zero redundant wording. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, the description never addresses how this tool relates to the sibling nodiom_delete, leaving a real risk of wrong-tool selection for a destructive operation.

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?

Only one parameter (doc_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with examples embedded in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Permanently deletes a document') and names the storage system. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling nodiom_delete, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which delete tool applies to documents.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative nodiom_delete or nodiom_get_doc. The agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name.

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