vault_delete

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

The description adds useful behavioral context like default commit, git recoverability, and idempotency behavior. However, the annotation destructiveHint is false while the description explicitly labels the operation 'destructive', which is a contradiction and could confuse the agent.

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 concise (two sentences) with the most critical information front-loaded. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, error conditions, recovery mechanism, and parameter behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default commit behavior, linking to vault_write for the same durability contract, and clarifying idempotency_key semantics for retries.

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 action 'Delete a single file from the vault' with the specific resource (file) and context (destructive but recoverable via git). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_write and vault_patch by explicitly mentioning it handles files only and not directories.

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 guidance: files only (directories are rejected), error on non-existent path unless idempotency_key is set. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the purpose and constraints differentiate it effectively from siblings.

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