pm_delete_project_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a DELETE request, implying destructive action, but provides no details on reversibility, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This fails to adequately inform the agent of behavioral implications.

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 short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential information about the tool's functionality, making it insufficient for effective agent use.

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 has three parameters (two required), no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. Even though an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not mention return values, error cases, or required conditions for success. The tool is complex enough to demand richer documentation.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters (project_id, file_id, x_user_id). The endpoint path hints at two path parameters, but the optional x_user_id is completely unaddressed. The description adds zero semantic value over the schema.

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 is essentially the HTTP method and endpoint URL, which restates the tool name without adding clarity. It does not distinguish this delete operation from sibling delete tools like pm_delete_comment or pm_delete_project beyond the resource type implied by the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pm_update_project_file, pm_download_project_file). There is no mention of prerequisites, required context, or situations where this tool should not be used.

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