delete_file

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint true and idempotentHint true. The description adds behavioral context: irreversibility, impact on referencing campaigns/templates, max concurrent requests, and respect for read-only/dry-run modes. This enriches the annotation information without contradiction. No annotation contradiction detected.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It covers essential points in a few paragraphs without redundancy. Minor improvement could be shortening the examples, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool is destructive with important side effects, the description covers prerequisites (list_files, get_file), consequences (broken images), rate limits, multi-account usage, and return format. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema, the description is fully complete for an intelligent agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters beyond the schema: file_id is 'numeric, as a string' and sourced from list_files; account is optional with an example and reference to list_accounts. This adds significant meaning that aids an agent in 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 clearly states 'Permanently delete a file from the File Manager,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools, the 'File Manager' context makes it distinct. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit 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 provides clear context: it's irreversible, suggests using list_files and get_file as prerequisites, and warns about broken images in references. It also mentions rate limits and mode behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, so it's slightly below a 5.

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