Workspace Delete File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the confirm=True requirement, which is a mechanical restatement of a parameter rather than new behavioral context (permanent vs. recoverable, permission needs, cascading effects on pages/elements). Low added value beyond annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the confirm requirement. Efficient and non-redundant at the sentence level, though it is arguably too thin rather than too verbose.

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, open-world mutation the description is thin: no irreversibility statement, no permission requirements, no dependency/cascade warnings, no mention of what happens on failure. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the destructive-operation context an agent needs to invoke this safely is largely absent.

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 should compensate. It does partially: it identifies inode_id as the deletion target and states confirm=True is required. But it does not explain what confirm actually gates, whether inode_id is workspace-scoped, or the boolean's default semantics beyond the schema's default:false. Two parameters at 0% coverage with only half the meaning conveyed.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Delete a file/workbook/data model by its inode ID.' The resource scope (file/workbook/data model via inode) is specific and distinguishes it from sibling delete tools (workspace_delete_tag, workspace_delete_workspace). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, no alternatives. The only guidance is an in-description repetition of the confirm requirement, which is already visible in the schema/required-parameter list. An agent gets no help distinguishing this from workspace_update_file or other destructive siblings.

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