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

With no annotations to describe safety or behavior, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It explicitly warns that deletion is permanent and irreversible, states that existing attestation is invalidated, and explains the keyless server's returned action_required flow. These are the critical behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the main operation, the destructive warning, the attestation invalidation, and the separate envelope-mode workflow are all packed into a compact block with important caveats front-loaded. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 tool with no annotations, the description covers the main protocol sufficiently: how deletion works, the two call modes, and how to proceed after signing. The main gap is the receipt_id parameter, which is left entirely unexplained. Output schema presence lowers the need to describe return values, so overall the description is complete enough for normal invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the text must carry meaning normally provided by parameter docs. It does add meaningful semantics for filenames and envelope, including the constraint 'one file per call in envelope mode' and the requirement to pass the signed result through envelope. However, receipt_id is never explained, leaving one parameter completely underrepresented in both the schema and the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete files from your Nukez locker'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The warning about permanence and attestation invalidation further differentiates it from sibling storage/verification tools. No other sibling tool covers deletion, so confusion is unlikely.

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 clearly tells an agent when to use the tool (to delete files) and walks through the keyless hosted-server workflow: call without an envelope, receive a signable spec, sign it, then re-call with the envelope. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear and actionable.

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