vault_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 effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and adds crucial context about irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), which is valuable beyond basic function. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the file doesn't 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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the irreversible action but omits details like expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it interacts with the vault system. For a deletion tool, more context on behavior would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description need not compensate for any gaps.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from the Obsidian vault'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vault_create_file, vault_get_file, and vault_patch_file. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 by stating 'This operation cannot be undone,' which implies when to use it cautiously. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_patch_file for modifications or vault_get_file for reading, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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