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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds meaningful extra context: explicit user authorization is required, current state should be inspected first, and Assinafy enforces deletion restrictions. This gives the agent important operational guardrails beyond the structured annotations.

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 critical authorization caveat is front-loaded, and the inspection precondition is included efficiently. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: authorization, precondition, and domain-enforced restrictions. It stops short of detailing exactly which documents Assinafy permits deletion of, but it instructs the agent to inspect state first, making the tool safely callable.

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 has 100% coverage, and the single parameter document_id is already described as 'unique document ID to delete.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the 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 names the operation 'Delete a document' and identifies the resource. It also adds an important scope qualifier: deletion should only occur when the user explicitly authorizes it. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 explicitly states when deletion is permissible: only when the user's instruction explicitly authorizes it. It also advises inspecting the document's current state first, giving the agent a concrete precondition before invoking the tool. Since no sibling tool performs deletion, the usage guidance is complete.

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