Delete a Gemini File Search store, and use force=true to cascade-delete all documents inside it.
Delete a Gemini File Search store. Use force=true to also delete all documents inside it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | If true, cascade delete all documents in the store | |
| store_name | Yes | Store resource name, e.g. "fileSearchStores/abc123" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate the destructive nature. It adds the critical behavioral detail that force=true cascades to delete all documents inside the store, which is not conveyed by annotations. However, it doesn't mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or failure modes for non-empty stores.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first states the core action, the second immediately clarifies the optional force parameter. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a two-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core action and the force cascade. Minor gaps: no mention of irreversible data loss or what happens if force is false and documents exist, but these are not critical given the destructiveHint annotation.
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%, with both parameters fully described in the schema (force's cascade behavior is already documented there). The description repeats the force behavior but adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Gemini File Search store), clearly distinguishing from siblings like gemini_list_stores or gemini_get_store. It doesn't explicitly contrast with gemini_delete_document, but the resource specificity makes the target 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 explains the force parameter's effect (cascade delete), which implies usage conditions, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., when to use gemini_delete_document instead). Context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.