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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (share links, analytics, chat, comments, suggestions, collaborators, stored file), states IRREVERSIBLE explicitly, and discloses the owner-only authorization requirement. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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 destructive consequence and irreversibility are front-loaded, and the confirmation guidance and identification hints follow in priority order. Every clause carries actionable information; the enumeration of deleted artifacts is dense but not redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: authorization, irreversibility, scope of deletion, user-confirmation policy, and target identification. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine nuance not in the schema: doc_name is fuzzy-matched, which affects how the agent should pass the value. It also reinforces slug as the alternative identifier. The added matching behavior earns a step above baseline.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (doc), plus the ownership qualifier that constrains it. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like duplicate_doc, patch_doc, or update_doc_settings without opening any schema.

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 — only the owner can delete, and the agent should confirm with the user when there's ambiguity — plus how to identify the target. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for non-owner flows, but the destructive framing makes that distinction largely self-evident.

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