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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses that the deletion is soft, moves to a 30-day trash window, and that a cleanup cron will eventually hard-delete and refund storage quota. It also states the restore path, permission requirement (Editor role), and feature gating (FILES_SURFACE_ENABLED + allowlist). This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and prerequisites.

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 description is three sentences, each adding significant value. It front-loads the primary action, then provides crucial details about retention, restoration, permissions, and feature gating. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (soft-delete lifecycle, restoration, permissions, feature flag), the description covers all essential aspects. There is no output schema, but for a delete operation the return format is low-value; the description focuses on the behavioral nuances that matter. It even mentions the future PATCH-equivalent MCP tool, showing forward-looking completeness.

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 both parameters ('slug' and 'file_id') with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning to the parameters beyond saying 'by id', which maps to 'file_id'. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to add more, and it does not.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Soft-delete a file by id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (delete_workspace, delete_surface, etc.) and from hard-delete operations. The additional detail about the 30-day trash window and restoration reinforces the exact behavior.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to soft-delete a file with a recovery window. It explicitly mentions the REST PATCH endpoint for restoration and a future MCP tool, indicating when an alternative should be used. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus other delete operations, but the soft-delete vs. hard-delete distinction is implied.

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