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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data. 'Cannot be undone' largely restates destructiveHint, though the framing that folders as well as files are removed adds a small amount of scope information. It says nothing about batch semantics (path + paths), partial failures, or the confirm gate, all of which remain in the schema.

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 with zero waste; the action and its irreversibility are both front-loaded. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 tool with two required parameters and batch support, the description is thin: it never mentions that multiple targets can be supplied, that missing targets fail the whole request, or that a confirm flag must be set. The rich schema and annotations compensate, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a high-risk 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 100%, including detailed path rules, the paths/path relationship for delete, and the confirm requirement, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Deletes files and folders from the site file manager'), so an agent can tell it apart from files_read/files_write. It doesn't explicitly name the nearest destructive siblings (content_delete, ftp_delete) to route between them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as content_delete or ftp_delete, and no mention of prerequisites or when deletion should be avoided. The only usage-adjacent statement is the irreversibility warning, which is a consequence rather than a selection rule.

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