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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the ownership constraint, the share-link cascade, and the Bearer auth requirement. However, it stops short of stating that deletion is permanent/irreversible or describing possible errors.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with the important side effect and authentication included. There is no filler; every word communicates a meaningful constraint.

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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, ownership, share-link side effect, and auth. It is incomplete on usage alternatives and irreversibility/error behavior, but otherwise appropriate for a one-parameter delete operation.

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 0%, and the description never explicitly names the id parameter, explains where to find it, or states its format. The only hint is the implicit inference that id identifies the owned access sheet, which is weak compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), names the resource ('access sheet'), and adds a scope qualifier ('owned') plus the cascading effect on share links. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_fiche, update_fiche, and revoke_share.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. While 'owned' and 'its share links' imply full-sheet deletion, the description does not say to use revoke_share for removing individual share links or list_fiches to locate the id.

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