delete_file

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the responsibility for disclosing destructive behavior. It does this well with 'deletes ... for good' and the 'WRITE' signal, which strongly communicates irreversibility. It could additionally mention what happens for missing paths or directories, but the core behavioral risk is transparent.

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 two short, purposeful clauses: the destructive action is front-loaded, and the preferred alternative is stated immediately after. There is zero redundant wording.

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 single-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what action is performed, that it is irreversible, and which sibling tool should be preferred. The only notable gap is `path` semantics, but the overall context is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it gives no details about the `path` parameter—no format, scope, or examples. It only indirectly suggests that `path` identifies the note to delete. The schema merely labels it 'Path', so an agent is left to infer the parameter's 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 uses a specific verb ('deletes') and resource ('a note') and sharply distinguishes the tool from the sibling `close` by noting that `close` keeps the note. An agent can immediately understand this is a permanent delete operation, not a soft close.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer `close`, which keeps it,' giving direct routing guidance toward the non-destructive alternative. It clearly implies that `delete_file` should only be used when permanent removal is intended.

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