delete_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding beyond them: it discloses permanence/irreversibility and names the two required capability flags (WISP_ALLOW_FILE_WRITES, WISP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE) that gate execution. It does not say how a missing path is handled, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and then the usage constraint and prerequisites. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter, single-resource deletion tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, caution, and prerequisites adequately. Minor gap: no mention of success/failure behavior or whether deletion of a nonexistent file errors.

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 both path and server_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, path-resolution, or defaulting detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Permanently delete a server file,' with 'permanently' scoping the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_backup or delete_database by the 'server file' resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use only for an explicit deletion request' gives a genuine gating condition and implicitly warns against speculative or bulk cleanup use. However, it does not point to an alternative for non-destructive cleanup or state what to do if the intent is ambiguous.

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