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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the record and stored content are removed, that the action is irreversible, that user-auth is required, and that specific HTTP errors occur. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence operation, followed by auth, error, and related-tool notes. Every sentence provides useful information and there is no padding.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it covers action, irreversibility, authentication, error cases, and where to find the required id. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The only parameter, id, already has a complete schema description including how to obtain it. The main description adds the endpoint context but not new semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Permanently delete'), a precise resource ('one of the authenticated user's files'), and the identifier mechanism ('by id'). It also includes the endpoint, making the operation unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling file tools like upload and get.

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 gives clear context for use: deleting a user file by id, with required auth mode and expected error codes. It also points the agent to ethora-files-get-v2 for obtaining ids. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool, but for a delete operation the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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