android_file_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a useful boundary condition (the authorized root cannot be deleted), but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether directory deletion is recursive, whether deletion is permanent, or what errors occur for non-empty directories. This is acceptable given the annotations but not fully 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with the key constraint. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or vague content.

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 two-parameter destructive file operation, the description covers the essential behavior: what can be deleted, where deletion is allowed, and an important limitation. The absence of an output schema and lack of explicit error/return behavior are minor gaps because the annotations already signal the destructive nature and the operation is straightforward.

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. It clarifies that rootId refers to an authorized SAF root and path refers to something inside that root, which gives some meaning beyond parameter names. However, it does not explicitly state that path is relative to the root or describe path formatting constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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'), the target ('a file or directory'), and the scope ('inside a writable authorized SAF root'). It also distinguishes itself by noting the root itself cannot be deleted, which prevents confusion with broader deletion operations.

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 clear context about when the tool applies: deleting files or directories within a writable authorized SAF root. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the constraint about the root itself makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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