Delete files

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds significant context beyond that: the asynchronous queued behavior with a RequestId, background completion under ~2 minutes, verification via listing, the confirm=true requirement, and the RBAC authorization note. These are valuable behavioral disclosures not captured in annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: core action, addressing requirements, async behavior, confirm requirement, and RBAC context. It's front-loaded with the destructive nature and key prerequisites. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 destructive, asynchronous tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: exact key and storageId requirements, id space pitfalls, background completion and verification, confirm requirement, and RBAC failure interpretation. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further clarification.

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 description coverage is 100% – all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description repeats some of that (storageId space note) but adds little new meaning for the parameters themselves. It clarifies the async behavior but that's not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete one or more files/folders from a drive.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying which id space is valid (StorageId from search_files/browse_folder/get_file_metadata, not list_files/recent_files), so an agent can tell this apart from other file operations.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for permanent deletion, with exact addressing requirements, and the confirm=true prerequisite. It also warns against using ids from list_files/recent_files and explains the RBAC denial meaning, giving clear conditions for successful invocation. While it doesn't name an alternative tool, the instructions effectively prevent misuse.

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