Delete a file from the executor workspace (UNC delfile)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the operation cannot be undone, it is type-guarded and pcall-wrapped, delfile-missing yields a specific error object, and failures (missing file, permission) return { error = <message> }. It also states the return shape and the approval requirement, which annotations do not convey.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good, but the description then trails into a long block of metadata-style fields (Phase, cost, idempotency, Capabilities, Produces, On failure) and a generic closing instruction to inspect tool-schema. Several of these clauses are filler relative to selection and invocation, so it is more verbose than it needs to be.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself ({ path, ok = true } or { error }) plus error-case behavior, prerequisites, and a verification sibling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this destructive tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 path, timeoutMs and threadContext. The description restates the signature and reinforces that path is executor-relative rather than game-relative, which is useful disambiguation, but it adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Delete a single file from the executor's workspace folder') and immediately scopes it against siblings by clarifying it is executor-side I/O, not the Roblox game. An agent can distinguish it from delete-folder, read-file, write-file and append-file without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the path is relative to the executor workspace on the host, not the game, and it lists prerequisites (active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval) plus a verification step (file-exists). It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, delete-folder, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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