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

Annotations cover destructive/idempotent/readOnly hints, and the description adds real context beyond them: login is required, adlRoot cannot be deleted, the structure diagram is regenerated server-side on save, and removed:false semantics. This is a rich disclosure for a destructive mutation.

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 action, then the constraint, then the alternative, then I/O. Efficient overall, though the explicit input/output recaps partially duplicate structured data (the output recap earns its place since no output schema exists).

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the meaning of removed:false, plus auth and constraint info. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% with both params documented, including the adlRoot restriction on code_id, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the required inputs but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (delete one file from project codes) and immediately scopes it against the sibling save_content. An agent can distinguish this from save_content/add_note without opening either 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 says when to use it (single-file read/write, faster than resending all codes) and names the alternative (save_content full replacement) for the case it cannot handle (adlRoot). Covers the when-not case too.

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