Delete Project File

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (which already mark destructiveHint=true). It discloses that the file is moved to the recycle bin, that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, that a repeat call returns 404, and that failures carry HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and error handling, though it doesn't detail the success response.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the action and then covers prerequisites, idempotency, error behavior, and API endpoint. While it's longer than one sentence, every piece serves a purpose: it explains side effects, error handling, and usage. The structure could be slightly improved with line breaks, but it's far from verbose.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers nearly all relevant context: what it does, what to verify before calling, what happens on repeat calls, and what error statuses to expect. The only notable omission is what a successful response looks like (no output schema is provided), but the description still provides enough operational detail for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (id, project_id) with descriptions including their roles (URL path and query string). The description explicitly lists required parameters but doesn't add much semantic detail beyond the schema. The prerequisite that id must be resolved first is helpful, but parameter meaning is largely already in the schema, so baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete the specified File by moving it to the recycle bin.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_project_folder or delete_company_file. The scope is explicit (project file, target by id).

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?

Provides clear prerequisite guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It tells the agent when to use the tool (after resolution) but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Still, the context is strong and actionable.

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