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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the file is deleted for the current token and that zip_history rows are retained, clarifying what is and isn't affected. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent or how failures are reported.

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 brief and action-first, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is grammatically awkward ('The register rows zip_history lists are kept') and may confuse rather than clarify.

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 simple one-parameter delete, the description covers the main action and a key side effect (history retention). However, it leaves parameter semantics unclear and says nothing about return behavior or error conditions, which matters with no output schema or annotations.

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 sole parameter 'name' is left entirely to the schema, which only gives length constraints. The description mentions 'uploaded file' but does not explain that 'name' identifies which file to delete, so the agent must guess the parameter's role.

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 the action (Delete), the resource (one uploaded file), and the scope (stored for your token), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It is specific enough to distinguish from zip_upload and zip_list siblings, even without naming them.

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 use case is implied: call this when a stored uploaded file should be removed. There are no explicit alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so an agent must infer applicability from the delete semantics alone.

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