Delete files from a gist

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

Well beyond what annotations already convey (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that deletion affects only the current revision while older revisions retain the files in git history, that the token is short-lived and bound to exactly those filenames, and that user confirmation is required. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and contradicts nothing in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, reversibility context, and the two-call confirmation flow. The core action is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema 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?

The trickiest aspect of this tool is the two-call confirmation flow, and the description explains it end to end: first call returns a token, ask the user, call again with confirm_token. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary. An agent has everything needed to invoke both calls 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including disambiguating gistId from the gist title and explaining that confirm_token comes from a prior call. The description adds only small semantic color (the token's short lifetime and its binding to exact filenames), so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence, 'Delete one or more files from a gist', pairs a specific verb with a specific resource and scope, making the operation unambiguous. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling delete_gist (which removes the entire gist) and update_gist (which modifies content).

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 specifies exactly how to use the tool: first call stages the operation and returns a token, then the agent must ask the user and call again with confirm_token. This is concrete procedural guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly says when-not-to-use it or names an alternative (e.g., delete_gist for removing the whole gist).

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