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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds important context beyond them: deletion cascades to every associated file, the item moves to trash, and restoration is possible until the trash expires after 3, 7, or 30 days.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the action and scope, then explain the recovery behavior. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: cascade scope, trash behavior, and restoration window. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the consequence.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'name' parameter as the skill name, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline.

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, and adds scope by saying it deletes the skill with every file belonging to it. That scope distinguishes it from skill_file_delete, which presumably handles individual files.

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 deletion scope is implied by 'with every file that belongs to it,' but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus skill_file_delete or skill_write. No when-not guidance or named alternative is provided.

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