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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that by specifying what is and is not destroyed: the artifact leaves the list, but the files of its versions are untouched. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is recoverable via trash.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb first and the scope caveat in parentheses. No wasted words; the parenthetical earns its place by preventing a wrong assumption about version files.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what gets destroyed, and annotations cover safety. However, recoverability (the existence of get_trash/restore_from_trash) and any permission prerequisites are not mentioned, leaving a gap an agent might care about before deleting.

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 coverage is 100%, so artifact_id and workspace_id are fully documented in the schema, including the workspace-name fallback. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Borra un artefacto del workspace') and the parenthetical clarifies the exact scope of removal. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many delete_* siblings (delete_document, delete_clip, delete_canvas), but the artifact-specific scope is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as patch_artifact (soft edit), restore_from_trash, or get_trash. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Borra'.

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