delete_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or what side effects (e.g., removing references) might occur. The phrase 'active workspace' hints at prerequisites but does not explain what happens if the workspace is inactive or what errors might result. No information about permission requirements or whether deletion is recursive is provided.

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, concise sentence that states the core function without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and target, and there is no padding or repetition. Given the simplicity of the tool, the length is appropriate.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks essential operational details. It does not specify return values, success/failure indications, error scenarios, or side effects. For a deletion operation without an output schema, the absence of behavioral context leaves agents guessing about expected outcomes. Sibling complexity (e.g., workspace interactions) also suggests more context is needed.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify what 'path' refers to (relative vs. absolute), expected formats, or how 'workspace_id' is used. The description's phrase 'within an active workspace' only vaguely implies workspace_id's role but offers no practical guidance for constructing valid inputs.

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 file) within the context of an active workspace, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_file or delete_workspace. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not mention any caveats such as irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use it) or reference sibling tools that might be more appropriate for related operations. An agent gets no help choosing between delete_file and delete_workspace or other file operations.

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