delete_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with that intention. It adds the behavioral detail that the deletion 'commits and pushes immediately,' which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential consequences like irreversibility or permission requirements, but the destructive annotation partiall covers that.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core action and an important side effect (commits/pushes). It avoids fluff and is easy to parse, though it is arguably too sparse to be fully self-sufficient.

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?

The tool is destructive and has three parameters, yet the description omits explanation of the optional commit_message, does not warn about irreversibility beyond the annotation, and provides no context about how the deletion affects the project. Given low schema coverage and no output schema, an agent would not know the full impact of calling this tool.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only project_id is described). The description does not mention commit_message at all, leaving its purpose and optionality unexplained. Since the description is the only other source of meaning, it should compensate for the sparse schema, but it does not.

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 file from the project.' It identifies the resource (file) and scope (project), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like edit_file or rewrite_file, but the delete verb is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, caution about destructive operations, or when to prefer local file tools. The only contextual hint (about Typleaf projects) appears in the schema's project_id description, not in the tool description.

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