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

Explicitly discloses soft-delete behavior and reversibility ('Reversible from trash'), which adds meaningful context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then the specific disambiguation guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Covers the core behavior, reversibility, and the edge case of title collisions. Lacks explicit mention that either `id` or `title` must be provided (since no required parameters), but this is implied. Good overall for a tool with annotations and full schema coverage.

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?

Input schema already covers all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying that `category` should be used when titles collide across subcategories and lists examples (memory/claude/cursor/env/docs). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Soft-delete a dev document by title or UUID' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_task, graph_soft_delete, and sync_delete by focusing on dev documents.

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?

Provides clear context: mentions reversibility and explains when to pass `category` for disambiguation. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the resource-specific scope implies when it applies.

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