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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description states it deletes files from storage and frees accounted space, which is inherently destructive. This contradiction makes the description unreliable regarding side effects. Annotation Contradiction.

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 a compact single sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to read, though it sacrifices needed context for brevity.

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?

With 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and contradictory annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify parameter relationships, required vs optional fields, return behavior, or any prerequisites for deletion.

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 provides no parameter explanations. The phrase 'um ou mais arquivos' loosely hints at multiple ids vs a single file_id, but the 'account' parameter is completely unexplained. The tool fails to compensate for the schema's missing descriptions.

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 'Remove' and resource 'arquivos' (files), and adds the clarifying side effect 'apaga do storage e libera o espaço contabilizado'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like crm_list_files, crm_get_file, or crm_unpublish_file.

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 permanent deletion from storage, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like crm_unpublish_file or crm_delete_records. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are stated.

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