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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds that deletion is irrevocable, that only the file is removed while the object record remains, and that replacement is done by re-uploading. These are meaningful consequences and match the 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?

The purpose and irreversibility warning are front-loaded, followed by the deletion scope and replacement path. The compact EN keyword tag is ancillary but does not obscure the operational content.

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 file deletion tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the key agent-relevant facts: irreversibility, reference-check prerequisite, exact deletion scope, and replacement workflow. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

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%, so file_id and file_udid are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: deleting a file from structured storage. It explicitly distinguishes this from deleting the object record by stating that the object dataset remains, and it points to upload_file_to_object as the replacement path.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite to check whether objects reference the file, plus a replacement workflow via upload_file_to_object. It does not explicitly contrast against onto_object_delete, though the scope difference is implied by saying only the file is removed.

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