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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the ownership constraint. For a destructive operation it says nothing about irreversibility, permission failures, or what happens to dependent data such as comments and likes.

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?

A single short sentence with the operation and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits confirmation behavior, error cases and return shape. It is not sufficient on its own for an agent to invoke this safely.

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 0% and the description does not compensate: it never explains the format or source of actfile_id or auth_token. The only parameter-adjacent hint is that the actfile must belong to the authenticated user, which is a semantic constraint rather than parameter documentation.

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 resource (actfile) and adds an ownership scope ('appartenant à l'utilisateur authentifié'), which separates it from siblings like mcp_delete_community, mcp_delete_message and mcp_delete_user. It stops short of describing what an actfile is or contrasting with mcp_update_actfile, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus mcp_update_actfile (modify) or mcp_get_actfile (read), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Supprime'.

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