Delete files

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses queued asynchronous behavior (RequestId, background completion, ~2 minutes), the need to verify by listing, and RBAC denial semantics. This is rich context that significantly aids the agent.

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 compact yet dense, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailing addressing, queuing behavior, and authorization. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return type (RequestId per object), how to confirm completion, and the meaning of authorization denial. It covers the tool's complexity comprehensively, addressing async behavior, prerequisites, and irreversibility.

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 reinforces and clarifies parameter usage, especially the storageId pitfall ('not from list_files') and the structure of objects array (one request per object). This adds practical guidance beyond the schema.

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: 'Permanently delete one or more files/folders from a drive' with specific details on object addressing. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like rename_file, move_file, and duplicate_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?

Provides clear context for correct usage, including the exact source of storageId (from search_files/browse_folder/recent_files, not list_files), the need for bucketName, and confirm=true. It implicitly distinguishes from other file operations, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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