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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the genuinely useful consequence: only the file goes away, while transactions_list and the summary still see the imported transactions. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens if the name doesn't match.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope stated first and the data-retention caveat immediately after.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main blast-radius question but omits how to identify the target file and what an unknown name returns, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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 single required parameter `name` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies whether it is a filename, an ID, or where to obtain it (maxLength 70 hints at a filename but the schema says nothing). With one undocumented required param, the description should compensate and does not.

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 and resource: "Delete one statement file stored for your token." That is unambiguous and separates it from bank_upload and bank_files by action, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 note that imported transactions survive gives an implicit condition for using it (cleanup without data loss), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to bank_files for discovering the file name.

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