@deva-me/mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that deletion may incur charges (via the catalog/estimate check), which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it states the action, specifies the parameter, and includes a cost-related caution. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions cost but fails to cover critical aspects like permanence, error handling, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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% for the single parameter 'path', so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the path identifies the file to delete, aligning with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 resource ('a file by path'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deva_storage_file_download' or 'deva_storage_file_upload' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other storage tools like 'deva_storage_kv_delete'.

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 implied guidance by mentioning 'check catalog/estimate for current charge', suggesting cost considerations before use. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'deva_storage_kv_delete'), or prerequisites, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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