workiva_delete_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool returns an unsupported message rather than performing deletion, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the message content or whether any side effects occur, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately states the unusual behavior. Every word 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?

The description covers the core behavior and is minimally adequate, especially with an output schema present. However, the total lack of parameter explanation and usage guidance makes it incomplete for a tool with one required parameter and no annotations. It leaves the agent to guess how to invoke it meaningfully.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the 'file_id' parameter. The tool name suggests it expects a file ID, but it is unclear how that ID is used when the tool only returns an unsupported message. This is a critical omission for a required parameter.

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 tool 'Return the explicit REST unsupported message' for Workiva file deletion. This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from actual deletion tools like wdata_delete_file or delete_document_section. The unusual behavior is explicitly named, leaving no ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it handles the unsupported deletion case but does not state 'use this when you need to delete a file' or mention any alternatives. An agent would not know if this is a substitute for deletion or a way to discover the API's limitation.

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