ipc_delete_file

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the 'Destructive-class.' sentence merely restates the destructiveHint annotation rather than adding context. It omits what actually happens on delete, whether confirm_token is required for safety, or any auth/reversibility detail.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the action stated first and no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with the annotations, but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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 destructive mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation and an unexplained confirm_token safety workflow, the description is far too thin. The existing output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the invocation preconditions remain undisclosed.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it mentions neither 'path' nor 'confirm_token'. The confirm_token parameter is especially opaque — its purpose and the conditions under which it must be supplied are documented nowhere.

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 (delete) and resource (file) scoped to the target IPC, clearly distinguishing it from ipc_read_file/ipc_write_file/ipc_list_dir. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and crucially no explanation of the confirm_token workflow despite a sibling tc_request_confirmation and a required path. An agent gets only 'this deletes' with no operational context.

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