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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the irrecoverability aspect ('does not need it recoverable'), which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotation's simple destructive flag. It doesn't contradict the annotations, and it provides useful context about the permanence of the operation. However, it doesn't disclose details like recursive behavior or side effects, which are covered by the schema's recursive parameter description.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary usage condition and immediately provides alternatives. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

The tool is a simple deletion operation with a complete schema and annotations. The description covers when to use it, what it does, and how it differs from siblings. The output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents; it doesn't explain the recursive parameter or the device parameter. The mention of 'exactly one' relates to the path parameter's scope but is more usage guidance than semantic clarification. Since the schema fully describes each parameter, no additional compensation is needed.

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 tool deletes exactly one file or directory irrecoverably, using the verb 'remove' and specifying the scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming delete_paths for multiple targets and move_to_trash for recoverable deletions, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when the user explicitly asks to remove exactly one file or directory and does not need it recoverable.' It also provides explicit exclusions and alternatives: 'Use delete_paths for two or more targets, or move_to_trash when reversibility matters.' This fully routes the agent to the correct tool.

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