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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: deletion is permanent and removes the workspace's history, not just the document shell, and it is tied to a user action in the editor.

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 that names the resource and its destructive scope immediately. The trailing clause 'on the person's Delete in the editor' is slightly awkward and could be clearer, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the key missing context (permanence, history loss). It stops short of stating permission/authorization prerequisites, but the schema already notes that editorKey is held by the host and editor alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (document handle and editorKey) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (deletes) and resource (this workspace and its history), which distinguishes it from siblings like document.undo_agent_change or document.commit. It does not explicitly contrast against a sibling, but the destructive scope makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as undoing an agent change or closing without deletion. 'On the person's Delete in the editor' hints at a trigger event but does not tell an agent when it should call this versus another tool.

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