box_file_delete_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated metadata/collaborations. The return value mention is minimal and doesn't explain error conditions or success criteria beyond 'dictionary containing success message or error'.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value mention. It's front-loaded with the core action. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly redundant with schema fields. No wasted words, but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and rich sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address safety concerns (permanent deletion?), authentication requirements, error handling, or how this differs from other deletion tools. While an output schema exists, the description's return value explanation is vague ('dictionary containing success message or error') without clarifying structure or common responses.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'file_id' is 'The ID of the file to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., numeric vs string ID), validation rules, or examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file from Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_folder_delete_tool' or 'box_web_link_delete_by_id_tool', but the resource specificity (file vs folder/web link) is implied through the tool name and description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), what happens to the deleted file (permanent vs recoverable), or how it differs from similar operations like moving to trash. Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.

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