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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new traits: exact retries are idempotent and cannot resurrect or double-charge, and deletion remains permitted even after owner usage exhaustion. What is missing is what permissions/'authorized' concretely requires and whether the removal is immediate and irreversible for all holders.

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, then idempotency, then quota exception. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive nature is well covered. However, for a 4-parameter destructive tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves parameter semantics and the authorization requirement undefined, which is a material gap.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description compensates almost not at all. 'Exact retries' only obliquely gestures at idempotency_key, and it never explains space_id format, file_id, or what `version` means (which version is removed, or a concurrency guard) — an agent must guess.

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 ('Remove an authorized private file') plus the extra scope 'and its encrypted chunks', which tells an agent this is a hard delete of stored content, not a metadata unlink. It is trivially distinguishable from private_space_file_get, private_space_file_put and private_space_file_copy.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Remove'; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. copy then delete, or checking with private_space_file_get first) and no stated prerequisites beyond the word 'authorized'. The retry/quota sentences are behavioral, not selection guidance.

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