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

Far exceeds what the annotations declare. Beyond destructiveHint=true, it explains that contents are erased irrecoverably, that dependent dashboards retain their charts (rows stored locally) but lose Excel export/recalculation and assistant readability. This downstream-impact detail is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent clause (irreversibility, dashboard impact, assistant access) carries non-redundant information. No filler.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the full consequence model: irreversibility, collateral impact on dashboards, and loss of programmatic access. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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% and both parameters already document their source tools (fastero_list_files, fastero_list_projects). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and a precisely scoped resource (an uploaded project file, for everyone in the project). The resource 'file' is clearly distinct from the other delete siblings (dashboard, notebook, query, report, page), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 conveys the scope and seriousness of the operation but never states when to choose this over an alternative (e.g., rename_file) or any prerequisite such as confirming the file is unused. Usage is implied by the destructive wording rather than made explicit.

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