delete_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully adds the guardrail that the actively-printing file is protected plus the existence of a two-step confirmation gate. What it does not disclose is how the confirmation actually works (whether confirm_token is obtained from a first call, whether it expires), so the agent still has to infer the flow.

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 action and followed immediately by the safety constraints. No filler, and each sentence conveys a distinct fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a destructive four-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the confirmation flow and the meaning of root/path are too thinly described for the agent to call it confidently on the first try.

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 all four parameters are undocumented in the structured data. The phrase 'Two-step confirmation' hints that confirm and confirm_token form the second step, but the description never explains how to obtain the token, what root 'gcodes' means, or whether path is resolved relative to root — leaving the agent to guess at a destructive call's arguments.

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 from the printer'), which separates it from the sibling delete_directory and from non-destructive file tools like copy_file or get_file_metadata. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit in the resource noun rather than spelled out.

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?

Provides a concrete when-not condition ('Refuses to delete the file that is currently printing') and signals a two-step flow, which tells the agent this is not a one-call operation. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., that directories go to delete_directory) or stating prerequisites such as lease or permission needs.

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