delete_sd_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. It mentions the confirm requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe other critical traits such as whether the deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., affecting machine operations), or error handling. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information or redundancy.

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 complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should address behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or consequences, but only covers the confirm requirement. This leaves critical gaps for safe and effective use by an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (filepath and confirm). The description adds value by emphasizing that confirm 'must be true to delete', reinforcing its importance, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from the CNC controller's SD card'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_sd_files (which lists files) or upload_to_sd (which uploads files). It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 clear context by mentioning 'Requires confirm=true', indicating a prerequisite for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_macro for macros) or when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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