delete_file

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutability. The description adds a valuable behavioral constraint: the 'modify_fs' feature must be enabled. This is non-obvious from the schema or annotation alone. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., non-existent file, permission errors) or mention that deletion is permanent (no trash).

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated in a separate sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 simple (one required parameter, no output schema). The description covers the action and the security requirement. It does not explain the return value or error handling, but for a straightforward delete operation, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 100% (the single 'path' parameter is fully described in the schema). The description adds no further parameter details beyond what the schema already provides (absolute path). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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), the resource (a file on the machine running the driver), and the non-negotiable prerequisite (requires 'modify_fs' insecure feature). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_folder or push_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 a critical prerequisite for using the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., move to trash, rename, or use a different tool). It implies usage for file deletion, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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