Delete Forms file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the API returns 200 OK with no useful body, and the returned record merely confirms the accepted action, which helps an agent understand the response shape despite the lack of an output schema.

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 three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the identifier constraint and the return-behavior note. Every sentence adds distinct information with no wasted phrasing.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: the required identifier combination and the uninformative success response. It does not mention permissions or whether deletion is recoverable, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals permanence, so the description is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a critical constraint not expressed in the schema: at least one of path or url must identify the file, even though both parameters are optional in the schema. This extra semantic rule meaningfully improves correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a stored form-filling file'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling forms_files_verify tool or mention when deletion is preferred over verification, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage through the delete action and provides the precondition that at least one of path/url must identify the file. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as forms_files_verify, nor does it offer exclusions or context about when deletion is inappropriate.

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