cleanup_all_files

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 describes key behavioral traits: the irreversible nature of the operation ('Irreversible operation affecting all uploaded files'), the scope ('ALL files from Gemini File API associated with current API key'), and the return format ('Count of deleted vs failed deletions with detailed lists'). However, it lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 action ('BULK DELETE ALL FILES'), followed by details on behavior, return values, use cases, and warnings. Each sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses.

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 high complexity (destructive bulk operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, behavior, and warnings. However, it could be more complete by specifying authentication requirements or potential errors, though the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by describing the return format.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and context without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('BULK DELETE ALL FILES', 'Removes ALL files', 'Clears entire cache') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_file' (single file) and 'batch_delete' (batch operations). It directly addresses what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 explicit usage guidelines with 'USE CASE: Complete cleanup after batch processing, reset environment, clear storage quota', indicating when to use this tool. It also includes a 'WARNING' about irreversibility, which helps differentiate it from less destructive alternatives like 'delete_file' or 'clear_conversation'.

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