delete_project_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral profile. It does disclose locality, the confirmation requirement, and protected file classes, but it omits whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are needed beyond the phrase, and what happens on failure. Those are significant gaps 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action; each sentence adds a distinct operational fact (locality, confirmation, exclusions). No filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain path semantics, how to obtain and format the confirmation phrase, irreversibility, and likely failure modes. It covers only the confirmation prerequisite and protected files, so an agent lacks enough information to invoke it safely in all cases.

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%, so the description must define both parameters. It only vaguely references confirmationPhrase ('owner confirmation phrase') and says nothing about the path parameter, such as whether it is repo-relative or absolute, nor where to obtain the phrase. This leaves both parameters under-specified.

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?

Names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (repository file) and scopes it locally; the two exclusions (Git metadata, secret files) further pin down what the tool does. An agent can distinguish it from write_project_file without opening the schema.

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?

States a prerequisite (owner confirmation phrase) and two exclusions, which gives some when-to-use context. However, it never names an alternative tool or explains when a file should be overwritten or removed via a different path, so routing guidance is only implied.

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