delete_file

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 critical traits: the operation is permanent ('cannot be undone'), immediate ('Immediate deletion'), and has side effects ('clears from cache'). It also mentions the auto-delete policy ('Files auto-delete after 48 hours if not manually removed'), adding valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies usage, and the third provides use cases and notes. However, the 'NOTE' about auto-delete, while useful, could be integrated more smoothly, and some phrasing ('DELETE FILE FROM GEMINI') is slightly 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, and critical warnings, addressing all necessary aspects for safe and effective use without needing to explain return values or rely on structured fields.

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 100%, with the parameter 'fileUri' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by noting 'Pass fileUri from upload or list_files', which hints at the parameter's source but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('permanently removes file') and resource ('from Gemini File API and clears from cache'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_file' (retrieval) and 'list_files' (listing). It explicitly identifies the tool's destructive nature, making its purpose 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 provides clear usage context ('Clean up after processing, manage storage quota, remove sensitive data') and notes prerequisites ('Pass fileUri from upload or list_files'). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'cleanup_all_files' for bulk deletion), which prevents a perfect score.

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