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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the batch-scope constraint but does not disclose additional behavioral details like permanent irreversibility or default recursion behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, and the schema covers recursive behavior, so this is a neutral score—not adding significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary usage condition and then provides the routing to alternatives. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. The description fully covers when to use this tool and how it differs from siblings. It could optionally mention that deletion is permanent and irreversible, but this is already implied by the destructiveHint annotation, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection.

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%, meaning all three parameters (paths, device, recursive) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies for high 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to remove two or more named files or directories in one batch. It uses specific verb 'remove' and identifies the resource (paths), and explicitly differentiates from delete_path (single target) and move_to_trash (reversibility), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use: when the user asks to remove two or more named files/directories in one batch. It also names the exact alternatives and their selection criteria: delete_path for one target, and move_to_trash when reversibility matters. This provides clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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