Delete File

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description adds the materially important fact that this is a SOFT delete where earlier versions are retained and recoverable, plus the exact mechanism to recover them. This substantially changes the agent's risk calculus beyond what the annotation conveys.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the operation is stated before the recovery nuance. Every element earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a one-parameter mutation, the description covers what is deleted, that it is reversible, and how to reverse it — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The full path of the file to delete'). The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a file stored in the user's Fulcra account') and implicitly scopes it as file-specific. It distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_file by framing them as a complementary pair rather than competing operations.

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?

Clearly conveys the context of use and the recovery path, naming both `restore_file` and `list_files` with the required `include_versions=true` flag. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., preferring archive over delete), but the operational routing is solid.

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