delete_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a key trait—deletion is permanent/irreversible—which is valuable. However, it omits other relevant details such as side effects on related records (e.g., transactions), required authorization, or behavior if the file does not exist.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential action and a critical behavioral qualifier. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action verb 'Delete'. No unnecessary 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?

The tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description fails to explain the return value or success/error indication, which the agent needs to handle the result. It also does not clarify why connectorId and messageId are necessary for locating the file. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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%, meaning every parameter (folder, filename, messageId, connectorId) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that; it only reinforces that a specific file is targeted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('a specific Arc file'), and the critical qualifier ('permanently'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file, list_files, create_file, and update_file, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage guidance is provided beyond the action itself. The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cleanup_files (bulk deletion) or when deletion should not be performed, nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions.

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