Delete File

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=true (destructive), idempotentHint=true (idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (open-world). The description adds minimal value beyond confirming deletion, but doesn't elaborate on consequences (e.g., permanent removal, recovery options) or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. Annotations provide critical safety and idempotency context, but the description lacks details on error handling or return values. It's adequate given the tool's simplicity but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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% with a single parameter 'file_id' described as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from DUAL storage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_delete_template' or 'dual_delete_webhook', but the specificity of 'file' provides some distinction. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name/title.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid file_id), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting other resource types), or related tools like 'dual_get_file' for verification. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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