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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the ownership requirement, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose permanence (e.g., whether deletion is reversible or cascades to shares) or any permission nuances beyond ownership.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Delete') and resource ('file'), containing no redundancy or extraneous 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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, and destructive annotation. The description, combined with schema and annotations, provides sufficient context for basic usage. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but for a straightforward delete operation, the context is nearly complete.

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% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'The file's id'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by restricting the id to files the user owns, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 'Delete a file you own' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('file'), with the qualifier 'you own' distinguishing this from other file operations like files_get, files_list, files_put, and files_share. It clearly states the tool's function.

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 description gives implied usage context: delete a file you own. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria (e.g., cannot delete shared files). The ownership qualifier is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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