viya_files_delete

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

Well beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses a confirmation prompt, version/If-Match concurrency checks, protected-folder restrictions, and the specific `not_empty` refusal for non-empty folders. It also notes a side effect that an agent would not otherwise predict: SQL Editor tabs retain the deleted file's text as unsaved content.

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 core scope statement is front-loaded and the escalation details follow in a compact second sentence. Backtick code spans and a stray line break slightly interrupt flow, but no sentence is redundant.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety prompt, the concurrency requirement, a protected-folder restriction, and a named error state. Only the `path` parameter's format and the exact `expected_modified` semantics are left unaddressed.

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 usefully explains that `location` takes 'content' or 'server' and that a version/If-Match token applies, which likely maps to `expected_modified`. However, `path` is never described and the version parameter is never named explicitly, leaving the linkage to 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 and resource ('Delete one file, or one empty folder, on SAS Viya') and bounds the scope against the SAS-9 sibling by naming the Viya locations. It stops short of an explicit contrast with files_delete, but the tool's identity is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (single file or empty folder deletion on Viya) and warns that the app prompts for confirmation first, but it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one. It leans on the sibling viya_files_rename for shared preconditions rather than spelling them out.

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