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

Beyond destructiveHint/idempotentHint, it discloses the cascade (shares are also removed), the permission requirement (admin access on the file), the auth model, and that the underlying exported file is NOT deleted from the public cache. That last point is non-obvious behavior an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, followed by the side-effect caveat and then cost/auth. The one-word 'Free.' is slightly clipped but carries useful information and costs nothing in length.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description covers cascade, permissions, auth, cost, and the cache-side effect. The only unaddressed item is reversibility/restore, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 single id parameter is already documented with its source (list_files or save_file). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Removes a file from the organization's library') plus the cascade effect ('and its shares'), which implicitly separates it from unshare_file. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 real preconditions — admin access on the file, an API key or connected account, and that it's free — and preempts a common worry by noting the exported file stays in the public cache and export_boundary can rebuild the url. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so not a 5.

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