Gitea: Delete file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful concurrency context (the current SHA is required for conflict detection), but says nothing about the resulting commit, the meaning of the message parameter, or whether branch defaults to the default branch.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key precondition; nothing is padded or buried. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is minor noise that does not impede comprehension.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is thin: it omits commit behavior, branch fallback, and the meaning of the required message argument, leaving an agent under-informed before an irreversible operation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and the description only explains sha. The required message parameter (presumably the commit message) and the optional branch parameter are left entirely undocumented, so the description does little to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a file from a Gitea repository'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling operations like gitea_update_file or gitea_create_file. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must be chosen over, but the delete semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of requiring the current SHA gives a de facto precondition for calling it. There is no explicit statement about when to delete versus update, or what to do when the file has changed since the SHA was read.

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