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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond those hints: non-existent paths return success with deleted:false, protected paths are audited, and force is auditable. It also explains the CAS conflict-detection use case, which the annotations do not convey.

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 dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, followed by edge-case requirements and idempotent behavior. Each clause earns its place, and the structure is easy for an agent to scan.

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?

Given no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the critical invocation context: protected paths, CAS conflict handling, idempotent returns, and auditability. A minor gap is that the success response shape is only partially specified (deleted:false for non-existent paths), but this is not essential for a correct call.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with high coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by linking protected path requirements to base_sha/force and explaining why base_sha matters for concurrent writes, which individual schema descriptions do not capture.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a file from the primary vault.' This immediately distinguishes sync_delete from sync_push/sync_read and the more specialized delete_dev_doc/delete_task. The added idempotency and protected-path details further clarify its exact role.

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 provides clear conditional guidance: protected paths require base_sha or force:true, and base_sha is recommended to detect concurrent multi-PC writes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer another deletion tool, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use guide.

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