delete_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the workspace-root boundary and regular-file restriction, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what happens on non-existent paths, or how directory paths are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: delete, regular file, configured workspace root.

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 destructive tool, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough to call it correctly: target type, scope boundary, and destructive intent. It lacks explicit failure-mode or irreversibility notes, but these are largely covered by the annotation and the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single `path` parameter is already described as 'Workspace-relative file path'. The description reinforces 'below the configured workspace root' but adds little semantic detail beyond the 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 states the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'a regular file', with the bound 'below the configured workspace root'. It also distinguishes itself from delete_directory by specifying 'regular file' rather than directories.

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 intended use is implied by 'regular file', which suggests this tool is for files and not directories, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_directory or state when not to use it. The scope is clear, but routing between siblings is left to inference.

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