notion_purge_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 disclosing behavior. It reveals a key constraint ('Rejects any filename containing path separators') and provides context about the daily TTL sweep and shared-slot semantics. However, it does not explicitly state return values, error handling on missing files, or permanence of deletion, which would be useful for a destructive operation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation, the second provides usage context and alternatives, the third adds a critical constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids any filler.

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's simplicity (one parameter, single file deletion) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral and usage aspects. It explains the shared-mount context, the TTL sweep, and the exclusion of path separators. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention side effects or idempotency.

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 only defines a 'filename' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying that it must be a 'bare filename' and that path separators are rejected, adding crucial meaning beyond the schema. Still, it could offer examples or clarify what happens if the file doesn't exist, but the essential semantics are covered.

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 a single file'), the resource ('from the cross-MCP shared mount'), and the method ('by bare filename'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming the alternative (notion_purge_shared_files) and explaining why this tool is safer.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after a successful upload to free the shared slot' and contrasts with the alternative tool 'notion_purge_shared_files with max_age_hours=0' which could wipe unrelated handoffs. This gives clear usage direction and warns against misuse.

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