p4_delete

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

The word 'Mark' adds meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the tool name by indicating that this is a staging/opening operation rather than an immediate physical deletion. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention effects on workspace files, changelists, reversibility, or the need to later submit. Some useful disclosure exists, but significant gaps remain.

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 efficient sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core operation. It could be more helpful by adding usage or behavior notes, but as a concise statement it succeeds.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool with fully documented parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values or complex schemas. It conveys the core purpose and the important 'mark' nuance. However, it lacks practical context such as when to use it versus other Perforce commands and what happens to files before submission. For an agent operating Perforce, this context is useful and partially 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including 'files', 'changelist', and 'workspacePath'. The description itself adds no detail about parameter meaning or defaults. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Mark', and names the resource, 'files', in the Perforce context. This clearly conveys the concept of opening files for deletion rather than physically destroying them, and distinguishes it from sibbling commands like p4_add or p4_edit. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool versus p4_revert, p4_submit, or other Perforce operations. The description implies deletion use case but does not state prerequisites, outcomes, or alternatives. This is insufficient routing guidance for an agent facing many siblings.

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