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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious side effect — that zip_history register rows are retained — which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. It stops short of disclosing reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the file is missing.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the retention caveat second. The phrasing 'The register rows zip_history lists are kept' is slightly awkward but adds real information rather than padding.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the main destructive scope and the history-retention side effect. It leaves out error behavior and the exact meaning of the required name argument, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the single parameter 'name' carries no documented meaning beyond minLength/maxLength. The description never clarifies whether 'name' is a filename with extension, a path, or an identifier, nor whether it must match an existing uploaded file exactly. This is a real gap for the one input the agent must supply.

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 uploaded file') plus a scope qualifier ('stored for your token'), which distinguishes it from account-wide or bundle operations. It also implicitly separates itself from the zip_history sibling by noting that history rows survive. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish deleting an uploaded file from zip_add/zip_create/zip_extract operations on archives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for removing a previously uploaded file while preserving audit history. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus zip_list/zip_history, nor any prerequisite or failure condition (e.g., what happens if the name does not exist).

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