Grok MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the irreversible nature ('permanently delete') and the confirmation return, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions (e.g., invalid file ID), or rate limits. It adds value beyond the schema but isn't comprehensive.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear Arg/Return sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action, parameter, and return confirmation, but misses context like error handling, permissions, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., 'list_files'). It's adequate but has gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter ('file_id: ID of the file to remove'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies that 'file_id' identifies the target for deletion, though it doesn't specify format or sourcing (e.g., from 'list_files'). For a tool with 0 parameters, this would be a 5.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('uploaded file from xAI'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'get_file'. It precisely communicates the destructive nature of the operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the file ID from 'list_files'), exclusions (e.g., not for active files), or comparisons to similar tools like 'delete_stateful_response'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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