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 disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to state whether deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what happens to associated share links. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, lacking any behavioral context, so it does not fully earn the top score.

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 delete operation, the description is minimal but misses critical context like permanence and side effects on related resources (e.g., share links). This is especially important given the absence of annotations and output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe usage.

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 fully describes the only parameter (id as file UUID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the simple schema. Per calibration, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 identifies the action (delete) and resource (file), with the added scope 'from storage.' It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from other delete_* tools by the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related file operations like revoke_share_link or delete_folder, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It is merely a declarative statement with no context. An agent would have no idea about the intended use case beyond the obvious action of deleting a file.

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