delete_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only warning, 'Use with caution', hints at destructiveness but does not disclose permanence, irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. It fails to detail what happens after deletion or any scope limitations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. 'Delete a file' is front-loaded and the cautionary note 'Use with caution' is concise yet valuable as a risk indicator.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks success/failure behavior, scope restrictions, irreversibility caveats, and any mention of the allow_external_access approval flow. The schema covers parameters, but the overall behavioral context is under-specified.

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?

Both parameters (filePath and allow_external_access) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. The description is silent on parameter usage, but per the rubric baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a file'), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file, write_file, replace_in_file, and edit_code. The verb+resource structure is specific and immediately understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where deletion is appropriate, aside from a generic 'Use with caution' warning that does not clarify tool selection.

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