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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond that: the deletion is immediate and irreversible ('cannot be undone') and has no credit cost. These are practical consequences not present in the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the two most important behavioral caveats. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description covers the purpose, the irreversibility, and the cost, while the schema handles the required parameter. An agent has enough to decide and invoke the tool correctly. The only minor gap is that the origin of fileId is not stated, but that is not critical given the simple interface.

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 has one required fileId parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly explain what fileId refers to or how to obtain it. The phrase 'delete an owned temporary document' suggests the fileId identifies that document, but the link is left to inference, so the description barely compensates for the missing schema 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?

The description names a specific verb ('delete') and a specific resource ('owned temporary document'), making the operation unambiguous. It also stands apart from all siblings, which concern downloading, uploading, converting, or transforming documents rather than removing them.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: to immediately remove an owned temporary document. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since it is the only deletion tool among the siblings, the usage context is evident and the caveat about irreversibility reinforces appropriate caution.

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