bb_delete_file

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the safety profile. However, it adds no context about the tool's commit behavior (e.g., that a commit is created on the specified branch) or permission requirements. The description merely restates the operation without enriching the behavioral picture beyond what annotations and schema parameters imply.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target immediately. It contains no filler or redundant words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With a simple action, destructive annotations, and a fully documented schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits the fact that deletion is performed via a commit on a branch, which is a meaningful behavioral detail for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. The branch and message parameters hint at commit semantics, but the description itself does not confirm it, leaving a small but real completeness gap.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, such as how path should be formatted or how repo_slug/workspace are resolved. This meets the baseline expected when schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a file from a Bitbucket repository', making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bb_write_file, but the name and resource make the 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used instead of bb_write_file for removing files, nor does it specify any preconditions like the repository being available locally. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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