arno.delete_file

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

The annotations only declare destructiveHint, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral details: it rejects directories, fails if the file is absent, and can be reverted via checkpoint recreation. These details meaningfully inform risk and recovery expectations.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action first, followed by a failure condition, undo behavior, and relevant alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, failure behavior, recovery path, and alternatives. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is 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 schema already provides full coverage for the single path parameter with 'File path to delete', and the description adds no additional path-specific semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 opens with the precise operation and resource, 'Delete a file', then immediately clarifies 'not a directory' and the failure condition when the file does not exist. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It explicitly states when not to use the tool by excluding directories and content editing, and names the alternatives for editing: replace_text or apply. This gives an agent clear routing guidance beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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