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: 'Removes the record and its stored content; not reversible' and enumerates specific error codes and their causes. This goes beyond the annotations, clarifying the irreversibility and auth requirements. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and well-organized: action first, then requirements, auth, errors, and related tools. Each sentence serves a purpose, with no filler. The irreversibility warning is front-loaded, making the destructive nature immediately visible.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, prerequisites, auth, errors, and related tools. It does not explicitly describe the success response (e.g., 204 No Content), but error handling is thoroughly documented. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the source of the id (from `ethora-files-upload-v2`) and later referencing `ethora-files-get-v2` as a related retrieval tool. This gives the agent actionable guidance on where to obtain a valid id, beyond what the schema states.

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: 'Permanently delete one of the authenticated user's files by id', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get/upload by focusing on deletion and irreversibility. The HTTP endpoint is also given, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit prerequisites: a file id from `ethora-files-upload-v2` and user-auth mode with an active session. It lists error conditions (401, 403, 404) and points to `ethora-files-get-v2` for retrieving ids. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' but the purpose is narrow enough that no alternative deletion tool exists; the guidance is adequate.

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