Permanent File Deletion — canary simulation

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds crucial context: the response is fabricated with a trace token, it cannot bypass a recycle bin, and it never accesses secrets or external systems. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a precise mental model of the simulated behavior.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the essential identity ('Synthetic canary decoy for security testing only') and then efficiently lists what it does and does not do. No redundant sentences or filler.

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 simple one-parameter simulation tool with no output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers all critical aspects: what it simulates, that it is fabricated, its constraints, and its purpose. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret its behavior.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'paths' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, examples). Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: simulates permanent file deletion. It explicitly clarifies it is a synthetic canary decoy for security testing, and contrasts with real deletion by stating 'no real action is executed' and 'never writes, removes, or enumerates files'. This clearly distinguishes it from any actual deletion tool.

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 declares 'for security testing only', which frames appropriate usage. It also implicitly says when not to use (for real deletion) by emphasizing no action is executed. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the canary nature is clear enough to route an agent toward this for simulation tests.

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