files_delete_config_file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses one key behavior: the file will not be deleted if it lacks a known safe extension. However, it does not mention what happens on success/failure, reversibility, or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, direct sentences that front-load the purpose and add a critical constraint. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary information.

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 deletes files and has an output schema, the description should clarify the output, safe extension list, and prerequisites (e.g., file existence). It partially addresses safety but lacks completeness for safe invocation.

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 has a single parameter 'relative_path' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain this parameter, its format, or the concept of 'safe extension', so it adds no value beyond the bare schema.

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 the target resource ('config file'), and adds a specific condition about safe extensions. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like files_read_config_file or files_write_config_file.

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, such as git_git_rollback_file for version control or files_append_to_config_file for modifications. No explicit context for appropriate use is given.

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