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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further by enumerating what is destroyed (workspace record, source PDF, previews, output PDF), what survives (saved templates, downloaded files), and the 24-hour TTL context. It also explains idempotency semantics via already_closed=True, which is more concrete than the hint alone; only the return payload shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and destruction list, then a clearly separated usage block; every sentence carries information. Minor bloat from inline code formatting and parenthetical callouts (e.g. the doubled backticks around finally) that reads as documentation style rather than agent-facing 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 cleanup tool with annotations and an output schema, nothing essential is missing: destruction scope, retention exceptions, idempotency, TTL behavior, and call ordering are all covered, leaving only the return structure to the output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the schema already defines workspace_id and its origin in open_pdf's summary. The description reinforces this by tying the ID to lifecycle effects (closing invalidates download_url/preview_url), but adds no new syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete/close) and resource (one temporary workspace plus its stored PDF, preview images and output PDF), and immediately delimits scope by noting saved templates and already-downloaded files are untouched. That negation distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like remove_field or save_template without needing the 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?

The explicit 'When to use' block gives an ordering prerequisite: only after the user has received the filled PDF from fill_pdf and, if applicable, after save_template. It also states the consequence of calling early (download_url and preview_url become invalid), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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