stage_delete

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: 'nothing touches disk until commit_write', the diff shows all lines removed, and uncommit_write restores the file. It still omits failure behavior (e.g. nonexistent path, rejected review) and permission/auth considerations, which is the only real gap for an unannotated mutation-style tool.

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?

Three compact clauses that front-load the action and the safety guarantee, then the diff effect, then the alternative. No filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: staging, commit, and undo. Return/diff format and error handling are the remaining unstated items, but nothing critical to calling it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for 'path' or 'reason'; the only parameter-adjacent constraint ('inside allowed roots') is already stated in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stage a file DELETION') plus the scope of the action. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling propose_write, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('for dead-code cleanup instead of emptying a file with propose_write') and names the follow-up/undo path (commit_write, uncommit_write). The alternative and the condition that selects it are both spelled out.

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