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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: partial-failure semantics ('a failure on one file never aborts the rest, so check each item's ok'), the uploader-only permission requirement, irreversibility of deletion, and the public reachability consequence of sharing. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail the annotation cannot convey.

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-loads the two operations in the first clause, then layers constraints and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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?

For a destructive batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers operations, batch limits, permission preconditions, partial-failure behavior, and the per-item ok check. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents action, account, and file_ids. The description restates the action semantics and the 20-file cap already present in maxItems, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond what structured fields provide; baseline 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?

Names two specific verbs (delete, share public link) and the resource (Slack files), even mapping them to the underlying API methods files.delete and files.sharedPublicURL. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_slack_files or delete_slack_message without opening any 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?

Gives clear operational context — up to 20 at once, only the original uploader can act, and an explicit 'confirm with the user before calling' instruction. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., why use this over delete_slack_message), so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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