Delete a file

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral detail: deletion is permanent, downstream pages will break, and a confirmation token is required. This gives the agent a concrete model of side effects and the two-step confirmation flow.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the permanent action, the downstream consequence, and the confirmation requirement. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 simple parameter set and full schema coverage, the description plus annotations provide everything an agent needs: the destructive nature, permanent side effects, and the confirmation-token protocol. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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%, so the schema already documents asset_id and confirm_token well. The description adds context about the confirmation requirement but no new parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 verb and resource: 'Deletes an asset permanently.' It also clarifies the consequence (broken image or dead link), which distinguishes it from other delete_* siblings by naming the resource and its unique destructive effect.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: when an asset must be permanently removed. It also communicates the key procedural requirement of a confirmation token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over related delete_* operations.

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