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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-structural context: the native-vs-Python chart distinction and the edit-permission requirement. It stops short of describing what happens to the parent sheet or references after deletion, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by scope exclusion and prerequisites. The trailing signature line is mildly redundant with the input schema but aids quick scanning; no sentence is filler.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope limits, id origin, alternatives, and permission requirements. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and return values need not be explained given the output schema.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining where chart_id comes from (files_add_chart or sheet context) and that sheet is optional/defaulted — the latter is also in the schema. The signature line clarifies parameter order and optionality. file_uuid remains undocumented, which keeps it below a 5.

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+resource ("Deletes a native chart by id") and immediately narrows the scope to native charts only, explicitly contrasting with Python/Altair charts which are code cells. An agent can distinguish this from files_delete and files_update_chart without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the positive condition (delete a native chart, ids from files_add_chart or sheet context), the explicit exclusion and alternative ("Python (Altair) charts are code cells — remove them with files_delete"), and the prerequisite ("Requires edit permission"). All routing decisions are resolved in the text.

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