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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat basic safety. It adds 'Permanently' (irreversibility) and explains the stale-doc use case, which is useful. However, the false 'no update tool' claim adds misleading context beyond what annotations provide, slightly undermining transparency.

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 first sentence is compact and effectively front-loaded. The second sentence attempts to add context but includes an inaccurate statement about update tool availability, making it not only unnecessary but harmful. Overall size is reasonable, but the content earns a middle score due to the misleading extra.

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 delete tool, the core information (what, how, why) is present Specialist. However, the claim about no update tool is a notable contextual error, and there is no mention of return values or idempotency. The description misses the opportunity to correctly route between delete and update, leaving the agent potentially confused when update_knowledge_doc is clearly available.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear source ('from list_knowledge_docs'). Schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: 'Permanently delete a knowledge/documentation entry by id.' It identifies the specific resource type ('knowledge/documentation entry') and the operation (delete), distinguishing it from the standalone delete tools in the sibling list. The mention of create_knowledge_doc also clarifies its place in the create/delete lifecycle.

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 description explicitly claims 'there is no update tool yet,' but the sibling list includes update_knowledge_doc, making this statement factually wrong and misleading. It incorrectly steers an agent toward delete+recreate when an update tool exists. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are accurately provided.

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