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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: the link 404s after removal, non-current versions can be targeted individually, and unused files are deleted. This tells the agent what actually happens.

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?

A single sentence with three well-packed clauses. The primary destructive effect (link then 404s) is front-loaded, followed by the version variant and cleanup behavior. No waste.

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 3-param destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this covers what the agent needs: the resource, the two removal modes, and the side effects. It could mention that the downloadId is required or whether versionId can be combined, but the schema handles that.

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 (id, versionId, downloadId) already have documented meanings. The description's phrase 'one non-current version' adds interpretive context for when versionId applies, but the schema already describes it. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 (download), and immediately disambiguates the two modes: removing a download (causing link 404) versus removing one non-current version. The parenthetical 'link then 404s' distinguishes this clearly from siblings like delete_page or delete_node.

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?

The description implies usage through the two mode descriptions (remove download vs remove one non-current version), which suggests when each parameter applies, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus set_download or list_downloads. No alternative is named.

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