Files: delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the dangerous nature is conveyed structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about irreversibility, whether deletion is soft or hard, or what happens to referencing entities.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding or redundancy. It is appropriately terse for a single-parameter tool, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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, irreversible operation with no output schema, the description omits anything an agent would want before calling it: confirmation requirements, whether deletion cascades, or how the ID is discovered. The annotations cover the safety flag but not the operational consequences.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter that is fully documented ('File ID to delete'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'by ID' adds no format or source detail beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline of 3.

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') plus the keying mechanism ('by ID'), which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like files_get, files_list, or files_upload, but the operation itself is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of how to obtain the ID (e.g., via files_list or files_get). The agent must infer the full workflow from sibling names.

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