Delete Project File

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is staged in the working copy, requires a follow-up commit via openl_save_project, and that dangling references are auto-cleaned. These behavioral details are valuable and not present 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, REST mapping, staging/commit behavior, branch guidance, and destructive warning. Information is front-loaded with the core action first.

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 the essential deletion semantics, staging, branch handling, and destructive nature. No output schema exists, but the main return-format options are fully specified in the parameter schema. Minor omission: no explicit note about what happens to open file handles or if deletion fails on non-empty folders, but the description is otherwise sufficient for safe invocation.

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 each parameter is already well-documented (e.g., path relative to project root, branch constraints, response_format enum). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline.

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 precise verb + resource ('Delete a file or folder from a project by its project-relative path') and maps to a specific REST endpoint. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like openl_write_project_file, openl_move_project_file, and openl_copy_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?

Gives explicit context: use for removing legacy assets or deprecating docs, pin branch via 'branch', and commit staged deletion with openl_save_project. Does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the workflow context is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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