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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — an authorization requirement (delete_token from upload) and a time-bounded window before expiry — but doesn't state what happens after deletion (e.g., whether the download URL stops resolving), which is the main behavioral question an agent would have.

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 sentences, no waste, and the destructive action plus its precondition are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially sufficient. The only real gap is post-deletion behavior and what the expiry window means if it has already passed, which would help an agent decide whether to attempt the call at all.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description restates only delete_token without adding format or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load; notably the description doesn't clarify that 'id' may be a full download URL rather than a bare id.

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 a relayed file') and adds a scope qualifier ('before it expires') that distinguishes it from generic file deletion. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_file or get_file_info, but the destructive nature makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implied rather than stated: you delete a relayed file only while it is still live and only if you hold the delete_token from upload. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other cleanup paths or what to do if the token is lost or the file already expired.

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