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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out concrete consequences: the file stops opening at once, its private link stops working, any sharing password is disabled, and storage is freed. It also discloses irreversibility, the permission requirement ("Delete Tunc Art files"), and that a repeat delete is harmless — the last of which is a mild tension with idempotentHint=false but is about harm rather than side effects, so it is not a true contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then the anti-pattern, then consequences and constraints — a deliberate ordering for a destructive tool. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the exclusion, the blast radius, irreversibility, permission needs, and repeat-call behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide or safely execute this call 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% and the schema field already documents artifact_id with its provenance ("from art_write or art_read"). The description repeats that provenance and adds the "one file this user uploaded through an agent" constraint, but does not explain identifier format or error behavior for unknown IDs, so this is the standard baseline.

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 and resource ("Remove a Tunc Art file") and narrows the scope to exactly one user-uploaded file identified by artifact_id, which cleanly separates it from the sibling art_write and art_read tools. An agent knows immediately this is the destructive counterpart to those tools.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("when the user asks you to") and an explicit exclusion ("Don't delete an earlier version because you saved a newer one: old files expire on their own"), which pre-empts the most likely misuse of this tool. The alternative behavior (letting files expire) is named rather than left to inference.

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