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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: deletion is recoverable via the project's History, a restore point is taken, and the main document is excluded — the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, action first, then reversibility, then the hard restriction. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, the definition covers the important risk surface: outcome is recoverable and one target class is forbidden. The only real gap is the unexplained path parameter, which the description does not address.

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 coverage is 50%: project_id is documented as coming from list_projects, but path is a bare string with no format, relative-vs-absolute, or directory-handling guidance. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the undocumented half stays unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a file from the project") and scopes it to a single project, which cleanly separates it from siblings like write_file or rename_file. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It communicates one real precondition — the main document cannot be deleted — which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, there is no routing guidance toward alternatives (e.g., edit_file or rename_file) or any statement of when deletion is inappropriate, leaving usage mostly implied.

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