delete-onedrive-file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, if recycle bin is used, or any consequences). The 'confirm' parameter is documented in the schema, not the description, and the description does not mention the destructive nature beyond the name. Since annotations cover the destructive hint, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could add details about permanence or recovery.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core action. It is not verbose. It could include a bit more detail about usage context but achieves the goal of being concise. Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, a single sentence is acceptable.

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 deletion tool with two required parameters, the schema descriptions are thorough and the annotations cover the destructive nature. The description does not need to explain return values because there is no output schema. The tool is relatively simple, and the schema provides enough context for the agent to call it correctly. The only missing piece is explicit mention of when to use this vs. alternatives, but given the sibling list, the name is self-explanatory. Overall, complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are unusually detailed: they explain that 'driveId' and 'driveItemId' must be passed under those exact names (not 'id') and how to obtain them from the drive object. This adds value beyond the basic type and required flags. The 'confirm' parameter is well-explained with the gate behavior. The description itself adds little, but the schema carries the semantic weight, so a 4 is justified because the schema descriptions are exceptionally clear.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a OneDrive file'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'delete-drive-item-permission' and 'move-rename-onedrive-item' because it focuses on deleting the file itself. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools in the OneDrive family, though the name itself is clear.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this is the tool for deleting a specific file when you have its driveId and driveItemId. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., deleting permissions, moving files) makes the purpose relatively clear.

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