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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: deleting both the document record and its embeddings, irreversibility, authentication requirements, ownership requirement, and specific error statuses (401, 403, 404). This substantially helps an agent anticipate consequences and failure modes.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then auth requirements, error codes, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 destructive two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers effect, danger, auth, ownership, errors, parameter source, and sibling alternatives. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including the default for `appId` and the source for `docId`. The description adds some relational context but largely relies on the schema, so 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 states a specific action—'Remove a previously ingested document from an app's RAG sources by docId'—and clearly identifies the resource and mechanism. It further specifies the effect ('Deletes the document record and its embeddings') and disambiguates this legacy user-auth route from the v2 sibling.

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 gives clear usage context: user-auth mode, active session, and app ownership are required. It names the alternative `ethora-sources-docs-delete-v2` for app-token/B2B and even tells the agent where to obtain `docId` via `ethora-sources-docs-list-v2`, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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