delete_course_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone,' which is a crucial, non-obvious behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like cascading deletion from modules or permission requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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: two short sentences that front-load the most important information (permanence and irreversibility). There is no wasted wording, and it is perfectly scoped for a simple deletion operation.

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 operation is simple with a single parameter, and an output schema exists (though not shown), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It does mention the key caveat (permanence) and the operation itself. It lacks any guidance on preconditions or error scenarios, but for a basic delete, it is reasonably complete.

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 has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'file_id' parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-evident (an identifier for the file), but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. It doesn't clarify how to obtain the ID or any format constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('course file'), and the critical attribute of permanence. It clearly identifies the operation and is distinct from the many sibling delete tools because it scopes to course files.

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?

While it is obvious which tool to use for deleting a course file, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., 'use this instead of removing a file from a module'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so an agent might not know if there are safer alternatives for non-permanent removal.

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