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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: deletion happens via an immutable revision (implying history is preserved and the change is traceable), stale-write protection via editHandle, protected main.py, and ownership scoping. It stops short of saying whether a deletion is revertible, what happens on a repeat delete, or what the call returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then constraints, with no filler. Slight redundancy with the schema on the id-omission rule costs it the top score.

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 5-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, exclusions, and targeting well. The remaining gap is the return value (e.g., the new revision id, which the agent would need for chained edits) and the unexplained `description` parameter.

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 60%, so the schema carries most of the load, and the description's strategyId/revisionId guidance largely restates the schema's own 'Omit with strategyId/revisionId for the current attached/open strategy' text. The two undocumented params, `path` and `description`, get no clarification in the description at all, so no value is added beyond baseline.

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+resource ('Deletes a file') plus the scoping model ('in a new immutable revision for any strategy owned by the authenticated user'), which is far more precise than the title. It also differentiates the two targeting modes (current attached/open strategy vs. another owned strategy), so an agent can place the operation accurately among file-mutating siblings.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('Requires editHandle from get_file/list_files to prevent stale edits'), an explicit exclusion ('main.py cannot be deleted'), and explicit routing rules for when to omit vs. pass strategyId/revisionId. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this rather than guess.

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