Delete Linked File

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'Permanently delete,' clearly indicating destructive behavior. It also specifies confirmation requirements, which are important for safe execution. It does not mention permissions or additional side effects, but the key behavior is well disclosed.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Permanently delete a linked file'), then add critical safety and usage details. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the crucial aspects: permanence and the need for explicit confirmation. However, it completely omits any explanation of the dry_run parameter, which is particularly relevant for a destructive operation and is not described in the schema. This is a notable gap for an otherwise concise description.

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 description repeats the confirmation parameter requirements that are already documented in the schema (confirm must be 'CONFIRM_WRITE' and confirm_delete must be true), adding no new meaning. It does not provide any guidance for linked_file_id or dry_run, and the schema coverage is only 50%, leaving two parameters completely undocumented. Thus, the description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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's action: 'Permanently delete a linked file.' It uses a specific verb+resource and emphasizes irreversibility, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_linked_file or create_linked_file. The purpose is 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 provides clear context for use: it is for permanently deleting a linked file and explicitly requires confirm_delete=true and confirm='CONFIRM_WRITE' before execution. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but it gives enough usage context to guide the agent.

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