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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the authorization model: password-protected docs need the password or owner's API key, while unprotected docs can be deleted by anyone. That is a meaningful behavioral trait not captured by the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the authorization rule following immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the authorization prerequisite well. It could note irreversibility or the outcome of a successful delete, but the essential information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 50% — docCode has no description, but the description explains the semantics of the password parameter (required only when the document is protected and you aren't the owner), reinforcing and slightly extending the schema's own note. The description compensates for the undocumented docCode by making the overall invocation model clear.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a document'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the create/get/update siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the destructive action is unmistakable.

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?

It states the authorization condition for password-protected documents versus unprotected ones, which is useful context for invoking the tool. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or what preconditions exist (e.g., whether deletion is reversible), so usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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