Delete a file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses an important side effect: 'Devices delete their copy on the next sync,' which is crucial for understanding the tool's behavior beyond just removing the file. It also indicates the deletion affects both the store and the manifest, adding completeness. This provides significant behavioral context that is not available elsewhere.

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 two short sentences, achieving high clarity with minimal words. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds an important side-effect. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no superfluous information.

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 low-complexity tool (one param, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It tells the agent what happens to the file and the manifest, and mentions sync behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit path format, but that is not critical for most use cases. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional context.

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 has one parameter 'path' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description says 'Remove a file from the store' but does not explain what 'path' means (e.g., absolute path, relative path, or naming convention). The agent must infer the path semantics. Since there is only one param and the description gives some context, it's acceptable but leaves ambiguity.

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 ('Remove a file from the store and the manifest') with a specific resource ('file'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'put_file' and 'get_file' by focusing on deletion. However, it could be more explicit about the file being referred to (e.g., by path).

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 implies when to use this tool (when a file needs to be removed) but does not provide explicit guidelines for when not to use it or mention alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that 'put_file' might be used to overwrite rather than delete, or if there is a separate batch delete. It's adequate but not explicit.

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