Delete Request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the action is permanent ('cannot be recovered through this server') and describes the mechanism ('the file is unlinked from disk'). It also discloses the file type and collection scope limitation, providing essential transparency for a destructive operation.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the action, the second adds context and consequence, and the third clarifies constraints and an alternative. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the description covers all essential context: permanence, scope, file type restrictions, and a clear alternative. The schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema is needed for a simple delete operation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool safely.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, and the schema descriptions are already detailed (e.g., filePath explains it is an absolute path and suggests sources like list_requests). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Permanently delete a Bruno request file from a collection.' It uses a specific verb (delete), identifies the resource (request file), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling remove_script by saying 'To clear just a script and keep the request, use remove_script instead.'

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 usage context: 'Use this to remove a request created by mistake' and names the alternative tool for a related but different task. It also states constraints (only .yml/.bru files inside a detected Bruno collection), giving the agent explicit guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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