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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the per-token scope of the deletion and the fact that a bad name is refused with no side effects, which is the key behavioral question for a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by name format and failure behavior. No sentence is filler.

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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything missing: name format, name discovery, token scoping, and no-op-on-miss semantics.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter's meaning — and it does: "name" is the upload name without the .docx extension, with doc_files as the way to obtain one. This is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs to avoid passing a filename.

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 and resource ("Delete one document") plus its scope ("uploaded for your token"), which separates it cleanly from doc_upload, doc_read, and doc_files. An agent can identify the operation without opening 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to doc_files to discover valid names, and states the outcome when the name is unknown ("refused and nothing is deleted"). It doesn't name a when-not-to-use case, but for a single-purpose delete tool the guidance is clear.

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