bb_delete_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation creates a commit and that the commit message defaults to 'Delete <path>', providing useful side-effect and message behavior. It could add permission or irreversibility details, but what it provides is meaningful.

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 short sentences, action first and default message second. No filler; every clause 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?

For a 5-parameter flat delete call with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core behavior and commit-message semantics. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing permissions or alternative tools, but an agent can correctly select and invoke it using schema names plus the description.

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 must compensate. It connects 'branch' to the branch parameter and 'Delete <path>' to path, and the default-message phrasing implies the optional message parameter. However, projectKey and repoSlug are left entirely to name inference.

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 'Remove' with resource 'file' and target 'branch', and notes the commit side effect. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like bb_delete_branch and bb_delete_comment.

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?

Implies when to use it: to delete a file in a branch with a commit. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as bb_update_file, leaving exclusion to inference.

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