vault_delete

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 substantive context they don't convey: deletion lands in .trash and is recoverable, permanent=true is irreversible, and there is no automatic retry or fallback to permanent deletion. Permissions/auth requirements are still unstated, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the recoverability default front-loaded and the irreversible case immediately following — no filler. Slight penalty for telegraphic phrasing ('ifMatch or ifMatchGuard (copy versionGuard)') that reads as notes rather than explanation.

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 the description covers the key danger profile for a destructive mutation plus the no-retry caveat. Missing pieces are path resolution semantics and any permission requirements, which matter for a delete operation.

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 description must carry parameter meaning. It explains permanent and gestures at ifMatch/ifMatchGuard as source checks, but the phrase 'copy versionGuard' is cryptic and the two conditional parameters are never clearly distinguished (full sha256 digest vs 16-hex guard), and 'path' is left entirely implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a file') plus the immediate destination semantics ('recoverable Vault .trash'), and clarifies the permanent-mode variant. No sibling tool in the list performs deletion, so the agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: default behavior is recoverable, set permanent=true only when irreversibility is acceptable, and use ifMatch/ifMatchGuard to guard against concurrent modification. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., vault_move as a non-destructive option), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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