delete_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a file' correctly signals a destructive mutation, but it does not disclose that the deletion is performed via a new commit (explaining the required 'message' parameter), that the operation is irreversible, or that the SHA may be needed to avoid conflicts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 three-word description is front-loaded and has zero waste, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A destructive tool with six parameters needs more than its action verb to be appropriately sized, so the brevity does not earn 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?

Although an output schema exists (relieving the need to document return values), the description omits essential operational context: that owner/repo identify a GitHub repository, that deletion commits to the repo, how branch defaults behave, and the SHA prerequisite. For a tool of this complexity with no annotations, this is far from complete.

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%, and the description contributes nothing about any of the six parameters. The roles of 'message' (commit message), 'sha' (blob SHA), and 'branch' (target branch) are left entirely to name-based inference, which is insufficient for an agent to construct correct arguments.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a file'), which is clear and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_file, update_file, get_file_content, and delete_repo. However, it lacks any scope qualifier (e.g., that it operates on a file in a GitHub repo), so it stops short of the richer specificity seen in top-tier descriptions.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description when delete_file is preferred over delete_repo or delete_branch, nor are any prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., needing the blob SHA). This matches the 'no guidance' level.

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