delete_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the destructive action ('Delete') and the target (file attachment), plus the return type (confirmation message). However, it omits details such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether deletion is permanent from storage, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, and the return value, which is sufficient for a simple file deletion tool. However, it lacks side-effect caveats such as permanence or prerequisites, and with no annotations, a bit more context could be added, though not essential for basic usage.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining all three parameters in the Args section. It adds semantic meaning: record is the ID, field is the file upload field, and event is for longitudinal projects only, clarifying the optional param's purpose.

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 a specific action verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('file attachment from a REDCap record field'). It distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like delete_records and export_file/import_file by scoping to file attachments on record fields.

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 Args section implies usage by specifying required record and field, and notes that event applies only to longitudinal projects. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus delete_records or other sibling tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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