delete_file

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether directories are removed recursively, what happens with non-empty directories, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though it could include more safety context without becoming verbose. The structure is optimal for immediate understanding.

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 high-stakes delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical behavioral details like recursion, permanence, and error scenarios. While the parameter is fully documented, the tool's safety profile and return behavior are entirely unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% since the 'path' parameter is described as 'Full path to delete'. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify path format, absolute vs relative, or glob patterns.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('file or directory'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that delete specific resources like databases or email accounts. However, it lacks any scoping details (e.g., recursive deletion, home directory restriction) that would fully differentiate it from potential file-system alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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