grocy_files_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and the HTTP endpoint is provided, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: omitting confirm yields a dry-run rather than an error, which changes call strategy. It stops short of saying the deletion is irreversible or what happens when the file is absent.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then the dry-run caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers what it does and the dry-run pattern, and annotations cover the risk profile. It omits how to obtain a valid file_name (i.e., using grocy_files_get first) and what a dry-run response versus a real deletion returns, which leaves a real gap for an agent invoking it cold.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry weight, and it does explain the confirm semantics (dry-run when omitted) — though the schema's own confirm description already covers this in more detail. group's enum and file_name's length bounds rely entirely on the schema, and the description adds no guidance on valid group values or file-name sourcing.

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?

"Delete a file" is a specific verb+resource, and the endpoint path DELETE /api/files/{group}/{fileName} makes the target entity unambiguous. Against siblings like grocy_files_get and grocy_files_put, an agent knows instantly this is the removal 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 only usage guidance is in the sentence "Omit confirm for a dry-run," which gives a safe-preview workflow but not a when-to-use/when-not statement. Nothing tells the agent to look up an existing file name first or what to do if the caller is unsure of the group.

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