Delete a guarded text file

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, so the description adds value by specifying the file type ('regular text file') and the safety requirement (SHA-256 verification). This goes beyond the flags, though it does not disclose behavior on SHA mismatch or irreversibility beyond what 'delete' implies.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the condition with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimally concise for an agent to parse.

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 destructive operation, the description covers the essential prerequisite (SHA-256 check) and limits the scope (regular text file). It relies on annotations for destructiveness and omits failure behavior, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. Only expectedSha256 is implicitly referenced via the verification condition; path and projectId are left to name inference. This does not compensate sufficiently for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a precise verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('one regular text file'), and a conditioning prerequisite (verifying the latest SHA-256). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like apply_patch (modifies) and create_text_file (creates), leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 a clear condition for use: 'only after verifying the latest SHA-256 returned by read_file.' This explicitly defines a prerequisite but does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer apply_patch), so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about when not to use the tool.

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