oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation is a soft-delete (not permanent), moves the document to trash, is recoverable for 30 days, hides it from listings and searches, and deletes the Files API copy. This covers mutation effects, reversibility, and side effects, though it lacks details on permissions or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and key details (soft-delete, trash, recoverable), followed by additional behavioral context, and ends with a clear parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with behavioral nuances), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well. However, it could improve by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or error cases, though the output schema may mitigate this gap.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining the single parameter 'file_id' as 'The Anthropic Files API file_id to delete,' adding crucial semantic context beyond the schema's type information. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format, making it highly informative.

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 specific action ('soft-delete a document'), the resource affected ('document'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it moves to trash and is recoverable for 30 days. It explicitly contrasts with 'restore_document' for recovery, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to soft-delete a document) and mentions 'restore_document' as the alternative for recovery, which helps differentiate from permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. hard delete or other deletion methods), nor does it compare to all sibling tools like 'delete_treatment_event'.

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