delete_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses key behavioral traits: the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and requires a specific access scope ('write_files'). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the destructive nature, though it could mention what happens to related data or error behavior.

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 extremely concise, containing two short sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with critical caveats, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, the irreversible effect, and access requirement. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but those are not critical for this straightforward deletion action.

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 description does not add additional meaning beyond the input schema, which already has a thorough parameter description for 'file_ids' including the format example and minItems constraint. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Permanently delete'), the resource ('files'), the method ('by their GIDs'), and includes key caveats ('cannot be undone', 'requires write_files access scope'). It distinguishes itself from other file-related tools like create_file or update_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use delete_files vs. other deletion tools or whether there are safer alternatives. It only states the permanent nature but does not help the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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