slack_files_delete

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

The description hints at write behavior through the 'effect' parameter ('Claimed read or write effect') and 'approval_ref' ('when resuming a write'), but it does not explicitly state that the operation permanently deletes files or describe other side effects. The destructive nature is only implied by the operation name and the `destructiveHint` annotation, not the text.

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 brief and well-organized, with a short introductory sentence followed by a clear bullet list of arguments. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to scan. No redundant information is included, and the structure effectively presents the essential routing and parameter information.

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?

The description does not mention return values, errors, or required parameters (none are listed as required). It lacks information about what the operation outputs upon success or failure, and it does not clarify whether the 'arguments' string must always contain a file ID. The presence of an output schema is noted but not described, leaving the overall behavior and result incomplete.

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?

The Args section provides concise explanations for all seven parameters, including 'arguments' (JSON string for connector operation), 'project_id' (authenticated Project UUID), and 'idempotency_key' (stable business-action identity). Although the schema itself has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by giving meaningful semantics for each parameter, making this dimension well covered.

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 identifies the operation as 'Slack connector operation `files_delete`', which clearly indicates it deletes a file based on the name. However, it does not explicitly state the purpose in plain language (e.g., 'Delete a file from Slack') nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like `slack_delete_message`. The purpose is inferable but not directly articulated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions routing constraints but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would choose `slack_files_delete` over other Slack operations. No comparison with sibling tools is given.

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