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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the permanent nature ('can't be undone') and the recursive deletion of folder contents ('and everything in it'), plus a user-confirmation requirement. These behavioral details go beyond what annotations state.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the irreversible nature and confirmation requirement are concisely stated in the second. Every word contributes value.

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 simple delete tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the destructive behavior, the recursive folder deletion, and the need for user confirmation. There are no missing operational details an agent would need to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with detailed descriptions (path relative to root, site domain). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 deletes'), the resource ('a file, or a folder and everything in it'), and the scope (recursive for folders). This precisely differentiates it from sibling tools like move_path, write_file, and delete_dns_record, which target different operations or resources.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for deleting files or folders, and includes a caution to confirm with the user first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource scope is obvious, so the context is sufficient without explicit exclusions.

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