delete_file

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by explicitly stating the hash and confirmation requirements, indicating that the delete will not proceed without them. It also clarifies the bounded single-file constraint. The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description enriches rather than contradicts this.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately follows with necessary constraints. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 file deletion tool, the description covers the essential context: what it deletes, the safety requirements, and unsupported operations. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the scope is narrow. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is low (20%) with only confirm_delete described. The description adds meaning by referencing 'current SHA-256' (expected_sha256) and 'confirm_delete=true', and implying session_id via 'Direct session'. However, it does not explain path, session_id, or review_id, leaving some parameter semantics unclear.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one bounded regular text file inside a Direct session.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_file, move_file, and sync_file by specifying file deletion and the 'Direct session' scope, plus the exclusion of directories.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by listing prerequisites ('Requires the current SHA-256 and confirm_delete=true') and what is unsupported ('directories and recursive deletion are unsupported'). It does not name alternative tools, but the exclusions and requirements guide appropriate usage.

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