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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that hidden/credential files are rejected, that auto_commit defaults to committing and pushing into session and version history, and that deletions remain recoverable via git history. This also reconciles the seemingly odd destructiveHint=false on a delete tool by explaining recoverability.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE ACTION label and confirmation requirement, with no filler. Bold-style section markers make the precondition and the side effects scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the dangerous-outcome cases (credential rejection, commit/push side effect, recoverability). Remaining gap is path/identifier semantics and failure behavior, which matters at 0% schema coverage.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains the confirm flag and implies auto_commit's default behavior, but never clarifies file_path semantics (relative vs absolute, project root) or project_id, leaving two required parameters undocumented in both sources.

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 and resource — 'delete one source file from a DreamAgent project' — with the scope narrowed to a single file. This is clearly separable from sibling write tools like dreamagent_write_file and dreamagent_edit_file without reading their schemas.

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 an explicit precondition workflow: identify the file to the user and only call with confirm=true after agreement. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or say when deletion is preferable to editing/archiving, so the routing guidance is one-sided.

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