delete_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the transport mechanism ('via FTP') and the destructive nature of 'delete', but it does not state that deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens if the file is missing or in use, or the mass-deletion implication of passing 'all' as the printer parameter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action verb leads immediately and 'via FTP' earns its place by adding mechanism. It is appropriately sized; the brevity trades away behavioral context, but that gap is captured in other dimensions rather than being a structural failure.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin. It omits return/error behavior, prerequisites, reversibility, effect on active prints, and the mass-delete consequence of 'all'. The tool is simple, but a deletion operation warrants more than a bare action statement.

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 100% — both `printer` and `remote_path` have their own descriptions in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter nuance beyond the schema and notably does not flag the potentially dangerous semantics of `printer='all'` for a delete.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with a clear resource ('a file from a printer's SD card') and even names the transport mechanism ('via FTP'). This clearly distinguishes it from the file-related siblings (download_file, upload_file, list_files) and from remove_printer, which targets printers rather than files.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., FTP must be enabled, printer reachable), and no cautionary note about the `printer='all'` option the schema permits for a destructive operation. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and one-line purpose.

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