arvan_vod_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 no additional behavioral traits, such as whether deleting a source file cascades to related videos or if it is reversible. For a destructive operation, more context is expected beyond what annotations provide.

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 no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify the deletion's effects (e.g., permanent, reversible) or any confirmation mechanism. Given the simplicity, a more complete description would include whether the file is immediately removed or queued.

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%, yet the description only says 'by id' without explaining how to obtain the file_id or its format. The parameter name 'file_id' is self-explanatory, but given the lack of schema documentation, the description should provide more context about the expected value.

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 (delete) and resource (uploaded source file) with the identifier method (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like arvan_vod_delete_video or arvan_vod_delete_audio by specifically mentioning 'source file'. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a 'source file' in the VOD context.

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 alternative delete tools (e.g., arvan_vod_delete_video). The description does not explain when to delete a source file vs. deleting a video or audio, leaving the agent to infer the decision without context.

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