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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds the non-obvious tombstone/recoverable semantics and resurrection on subsequent writes. This goes beyond the annotations, providing critical safety-relevant behavior that an agent must know before calling delete.

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?

Two compact sentences with high information density. Every phrase earns its place: what it does, the tombstone side-effect, recoverability via restore, and resurrection behavior. No fluff or repetition.

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 4-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the most important side effects. It omits lock-related nuances and version conflict behavior, but those are already described in the schema. The tombstone and resurrection details make it sufficiently complete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (path, workspace, override_lock, expected_version) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, earning the baseline 3.

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 'Delete a file' – a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by explaining the tombstone behavior, making it clear this is a recoverable delete, not a destructive erase. This clearly separates it from read, write, move, and restore.

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 implies use when you want to delete a file, and the note about resurrection hints at recovering via rewrite, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like move or restore. There is no direct 'use X instead' guidance, making the usage context clear but not deeply differentiated.

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