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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the file is permanently deleted or moved to trash, whether it can be recovered, or what permissions are required — all material facts given sibling tools get_trash and restore_from_trash exist.

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 short sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail.

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, irreversible-looking delete with no output schema, the description omits the essentials an agent needs: whether deletion is permanent or to-trash, and how it differs from delete_document. The structured fields cover the parameters, but the behavioral gap is significant.

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%, and the schema already explains file_id and the workspace_id resolution rules in detail. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Elimina') and resource ('archivo del workspace'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from closely-named siblings such as delete_document, delete_artifact, or delete_clip, so an agent must infer that this targets a file attached to a document rather than a document itself.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over delete_document, delete_artifact, or when to use restore_from_trash instead. No prerequisites or preconditions (e.g., ownership or admin rights) are stated.

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