delete_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the permanent deletion warning and the 'moves to trash if enabled' caveat, which goes beyond the annotations. It also notes the return is a confirmation message. This is good behavioral disclosure beyond structured data.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action and resource are in the first sentence, the warning is prominent, and the parameter/return details are clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It includes the warning, parameter example, and return type. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the path is relative to the user's root or absolute, but the example mitigates this.

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 compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter with an example ('Documents/old-file.txt'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property. However, it doesn't clarify path format nuances (e.g., leading slash, root-relative vs absolute), but the example helps.

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 file or directory from Nextcloud'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_file, copy_file, and delete_trash_item. The scope is unambiguous.

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 when to use it (when you want to delete a file/directory) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like delete_trash_item for trash-specific operations. It provides a clear context but no exclusions.

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