Delete Project File

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

Annotations (destructiveHint: true, openWorldHint: true) are supplemented with rich context: auto-cleans dangling references, deletion is staged, and requires a separate commit. This goes well beyond the simple destructive hint.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: action, API mapping, side effect, usage scenario, and warning. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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?

Covers key aspects for a delete tool: what it does, parameter nuances, side effects, and commit requirement. No output schema is expected for a delete; however, error conditions (e.g., nonexistent path) are not mentioned. Reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value: clarifies that paths are project-relative and must not include the project name, explains the trailing slash convention for folders, and instructs to use the exact projectId from openl_list_projects(). The branch and response_format parameters are sufficiently explained.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a file or folder by project-relative path, maps to a specific API endpoint, and distinguishes its use case ('remove legacy assets or deprecate docs') from sibling tools like openl_move_project_file or openl_write_project_file.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('remove legacy assets or deprecate docs') and explains the staging/commit workflow ('Like writes, the deletion is staged in the working copy — commit it with openl_save_project'). Mentions branch pinning but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like openl_write_project_file for replacing content.

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