delete_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states that a file is deleted, without disclosing that deletion is permanent, that a commit is created with the provided message, or any permission/effect details. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately short for the tool's basic purpose, though this brevity sacrifices behavioral detail captured in other dimensions.

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?

With five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand the destructive side effects, commit behavior, or branch context. The schema covers parameter mechanics but not the behavioral context needed for safe use.

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 documents all five required parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), identifies the resource ('a file'), and names the system ('Codeup repository'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling create_file and update_file tools. It is unambiguous and does not merely restate the tool name.

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 no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The verb and resource make the intended use obvious compared to create_file/update_file, but this is implied rather than stated, and there is no mention of when not to use it.

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