delete_assistant_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting assistant functionality), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, permissions), expected outcomes, or error handling. Given the complexity of deletion operations, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with both parameters ('assistant_id' and 'file_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how to obtain these IDs or their format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 target ('a specific file from an assistant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_assistant' or 'get_assistant_files', which would require more specific language about scope or relationship to other operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing file), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_assistant_files' for listing files or 'delete_assistant' for broader deletions.

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