delete_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates removal from the knowledge base, implying destructive action, but does not mention irreversibility, error handling (e.g., nonexistent file), or what happens if both parameters are provided. The note about providing one or the other adds some context, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core action. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or extraneous information. It efficiently conveys all necessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the primary usage scenario well. It explains how to specify the document to delete. However, it omits details like success/error responses, permission requirements, or side effects, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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?

Since the schema has zero parameter descriptions, the description compensates by explaining the origin of each parameter (filePath for ingest_file, source for ingest_data) and their mutual exclusivity. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter names, though it could specify valid formats or constraints.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'document from your knowledge base'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ingest_file and ingest_data (which add content) and list_files (which lists them), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicit guidance on which parameter to use based on how the content was added (filePath for ingest_file, source for ingest_data) and states that exactly one is needed. While it does not compare against alternatives, deletion is unique among siblings, so this is sufficient.

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