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 explicitly warns 'Não há lixeira nem desfazer' (there is no trash or undo), which is critical for a destructive operation. This goes well beyond simply saying 'delete file.'

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: action first, usage second, parameter semantics last. Every sentence adds value, and the most important operational warning (permanence, no undo) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, the irreversible behavior, and the path semantics. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining 'path' as 'Arquivo, relativo ao workspace' (file, relative to the workspace), adding important meaning about path interpretation that the schema itself lacks. It could be slightly richer, but it is sufficient for the single required parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apaga permanentemente um arquivo do workspace.' This clearly states the action, the target, and the permanent nature of the deletion, distinguishing it from the listed sibling tools that operate on media files or job status.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use para limpar saídas intermediárias' (use to clean intermediate outputs). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but since there is no other deletion tool among the siblings, the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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