delete_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is permanent and irreversible, and that the 'confirm' parameter must be explicitly True, warning the user about the destructive nature. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant 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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what the tool does, the workspace context, the irreversibility, and the confirmation requirement. No additional behavioral context seems necessary.

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 no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining 'path: Path relative to the workspace root' and 'confirm: Must be explicitly True; this is irreversible', adding essential meaning for both parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Permanently delete a file inside the workspace.' This uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_directory and create_file.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for deleting files within the workspace, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use delete_directory for directories'), stopping short of a full 5.

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