vault_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that the default path is recoverable via .trash, that permanent=true is irreversible, that ifMatch guards against source changes, and that there is no automatic retry or permanent fallback. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs to avoid data loss and to handle retries itself.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the default (recoverable) behavior before the irreversible flag, with zero filler. Every clause carries distinct operational information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining behavioral essentials, though it omits edge cases such as missing paths or directory handling that a mutation tool could clarify.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it explains the two non-obvious ones: permanent controls irreversibility and ifMatch validates the source. Only 'path' is left undocumented, though its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 names a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a file in the Vault), and its default semantics ('to recoverable Vault .trash') immediately distinguish it from the read/write/append/patch siblings, which cannot destroy data. An agent can identify this as the sole deletion tool 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?

The description implies the deletion context and warns that permanent=true is irreversible, but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites apply (e.g. whether the file must exist). Usage is inferable rather than explicit, which matches a 3.

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