delete_knowledge_file

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

Without annotations, the description discloses it is a mutation and requires confirmation, indicating a destructive action. It also notes system file restriction. However, it does not explain permanence, recoverability, or authorization requirements, which are expected for a deletion 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and includes essential context (mutation, confirmation requirement, system file restriction). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 simple two-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description satisfactorily covers the core functionality, danger level, and specific constraint. It could mention return value or side effects but is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that confirm is required for execution and that system files are excluded, but it doesn't add deeper meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., how to obtain file_id).

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 it deletes a knowledge file from the knowledge base and specifies it cannot delete system files. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and marks as mutation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like delete_knowledge_snippet.

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 context about requiring confirmation (confirm=true) and the limitation on system files. It implies a dangerous action but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_knowledge_snippet or other deletion tools.

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