Delete theme file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the deletion is local, auto-commits, and remote deletion via theme_push has a caveat to mention. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether deletion is permanent/recoverable, or errors such as nonexistent files.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a necessary warning. No fluff or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: parameter meanings are not stated, return/confirmation behavior is absent, and failure/edge-case behavior is unspecified. The remote-deletion caveat is helpful but not sufficient.

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 covers none of the parameters, and the description does not explicitly explain 'filename' or 'message'. The phrase 'auto-commit' loosely implies 'message' may be a commit message, and 'theme file' implies what 'filename' refers to, but this is weak compensation for 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Delete'), resource ('local theme file'), and consequence ('auto-commit'). The word 'local' also distinguishes it from remote/theme_push operations, and the description is not just a restatement of the title.

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 when to use this tool: to delete local theme files with auto-commit. It also gives a relevant warning about theme_push's remote deletion behavior, which helps an agent avoid misusing the sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use delete_file or name alternatives for other deletion workflows.

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