Session Delete File

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it only deletes the file or symlink entry, never the directory or symlink target, and refuses runner-internal paths. This goes beyond the binary annotation hints and clarifies safety boundaries.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary information: scope, purpose, alternatives, and restrictions. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides context in a logical order, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter deletion tool with a well-documented schema, output schema, and good annotations, the description covers everything needed: what it deletes, when to use it, why alternatives fail, and what it refuses. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds contextual constraints like refusing directories and protecting symlink targets, which indirectly clarifies path semantics, but it does not need to add much because the schema already covers parameter meaning.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Delete one file (or symlink entry — never the directory or symlink's target) from a session workspace.' It clearly distinguishes its scope from write, run, and stop operations by naming them, making the tool's unique role immediately obvious.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the recovery path when a session exceeds CODECALC_MAX_ARTIFACT_COUNT, and it explains why alternatives session_write_file and session_run/execute_code cannot help. It also states exclusions (runner-internal paths and directories), leaving no ambiguity about when the tool applies.

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