delete_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, that share records are removed alongside the physical objects, and the underlying storage layers affected (WebDAV/S3). It omits failure semantics such as behavior on partially valid file_ids or what happens to files not owned by the caller, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the destructive verb front-loaded, then the cascade scope, then the authorization precondition. No filler and no repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: irreversibility, cascade scope, and the authorization gate. Only edge-case behavior (partial failures, unknown or non-owned IDs) is left unspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters (confirm, file_ids with its 50-item cap) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm=true requirement but adds no new semantics such as ID format or behavior for unknown IDs, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource (irreversibly delete CloudPaste files) plus a scope constraint (only files created by the current API Key), and spells out the cascade (share records and underlying WebDAV/S3 objects). An agent can distinguish this from the read-only siblings (list_files, get_file, test_connection) immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit gating precondition: call only after obtaining explicit user deletion authorization, and confirm=true is mandatory. It does not enumerate a when-not case (e.g. soft delete / recycle bin alternatives), but the sibling set contains no competing delete tool, so routing guidance is effectively complete.

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