delete_printer_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses destructive behavior, the confirm safety mechanism, and directory/path traversal restrictions. It does not detail irreversibility or post-deletion state, which would be ideal, but it is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds essential guidance.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (destructive, require confirm, directory restrictions) well. It lacks some details like error handling or success confirmation, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains the default directory resolution for bare filenames and the allowed directories, and clarifies the confirm parameter's role. This enriches the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 deletes a file from the printer's SD card via FTPS, specifying allowed directories and path traversal rejection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_printer_files or cancel_print.

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 explicitly notes that the operation is destructive and requires confirm:true, guiding the agent to set that parameter. However, it does not compare with alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, though context is clear.

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