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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description extends this with 'Cannot be undone,' confirming irreversibility. It also adds auth context — owner/admin role for team files — which is genuinely new information beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences: the core action leads, followed by the irreversibility warning and the permission condition. Every sentence earns its place and there is zero filler.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the operation, its permanence, and the auth gate. Minor gaps remain around return values and error behavior for nonexistent files, but the low complexity and supportive annotations make this largely sufficient.

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%, with file_id fully described as 'The file ID to delete,' so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file'), making the operation unambiguous. The delete verb inherently separates it from sibling file tools (file_list, file_read, file_write), though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent infers this is for removing files because no sibling tool performs deletion of a file. The description adds a useful prerequisite ('For team files: requires owner/admin role'), but there is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative routing.

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