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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the deletion is permanent ('No deploy or rollback brings it back') and workspace data is shared across every version. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but the editor-key auth is documented in the schema.

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?

Three compact sentences, zero waste, with the destructive scope and permanence front-loaded ahead of the optional feature behavior. 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?

For a destructive, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, permanence, and the feature override, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. What is missing is minor: no statement of required permissions beyond the schema's editor key, and no note on folder-recursion behavior beyond 'with its contents'.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of `feature` (delete from that feature's copy) and clarifies that `path` is relative to a workspace shared by all versions, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Remove) and resource (a file, or a folder with its contents) plus the exact scope: the workspace / lambda's data, shared by every version. An agent can distinguish this from upload_file, list_files, or delete_feature without opening any schema.

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 routing condition: 'With feature, from that feature's copy instead,' which tells the agent when the optional parameter changes the target. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g. prefer delete_feature for features), so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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