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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real context beyond that: deletion is immediate with no trash or recovery path, the skill's history records the event, and the exact success/failure response wording is given. Only permission or authorization requirements are left unstated.

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?

Four short sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. The trailing documentation URL is the only element that doesn't directly help an agent decide or invoke, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, irreversibility, side effects on history, and return values. It stops short of discussing failure modes other than a missing file, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, with both skill and path documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's response template "Deleted <skill>/<path>" loosely reinforces how the two parameters combine but adds no syntax, path-resolution, or format rules beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete one companion file of a skill") and immediately bounds the scope: "the skill and its other files stay." That scope statement distinguishes it from the sibling skill_delete without requiring the agent to compare 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?

"Meant for removing a script or reference the skill no longer uses" supplies clear situational guidance for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as skill_file_write or skill_delete as the fallback choices, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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