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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope detail beyond that: exactly what is destroyed (library copy, searchable chunks) and what residual data survives (historical workflow quotations). It does not state reversibility or permissions, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the confirmation precondition front-loaded before the destructive effect. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive/read-only profile. The description covers the confirmation gate and destruction scope, though it omits whether the deletion is permanent or undoable, which would fully close the loop for an irreversible operation.

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 50%: confirmName is documented in-schema, resourceId is not. The phrase 'the exact named resource' reinforces the confirmation parameter's intent but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for resourceId, so it is only marginally better than 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 names a specific verb+resource effect: 'Deletes its library copy and searchable chunks,' which pins down scope more precisely than the title alone. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling remove_connector, but the resource-file scope is unambiguous from the title and text.

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?

'Use this only after the user confirms the exact named resource' gives a clear, actionable precondition for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when a different removal tool (e.g., remove_connector) is appropriate, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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