Delete File

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'returns not_found gracefully if the file does not exist.' Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description elaborates on the idempotent behavior. However, it could mention permission requirements or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the key action ('Delete a file...'). No redundant information, and each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters including dryRun and confirmationToken, the description does not explain their purpose or the approval flow. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at return values. The tool is destructive, so missing context on confirmation token undermines safe 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter (routerId, name, dryRun, confirmationToken). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete a file from the router filesystem by name.' It uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_file, list_files, and manage_* tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions idempotency and graceful handling of non-existent files, but does not provide context for when deletion is appropriate or when to prefer other tools (e.g., backup before delete).

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