delete_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It simply says 'Delete file or directory' without mentioning that deletion is permanent, that recursive deletion is required for non-empty directories, that force affects error behavior, or that permission may be required. This is a severe lack of transparency for a mutating 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, lean sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally concise. However, it is so brief that it omits critical behavioral context, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It serves as a minimal purpose statement but lacks substance.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a three-parameter input schema. The description offers no information about permanent deletion, directory handling, error cases, return values, or side effects. Given the complexity of deletion semantics (recursion, force, non-existent paths), the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool safely and 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 parameters with descriptions for path, force, and recursive, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 'Delete file or directory' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (file or directory), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform read, write, copy, move, etc. operations. It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's primary function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, safety considerations, or situations where deletion might not be appropriate. The sibling tools do not include another delete operation, so usage is implied, but the description itself offers no exclusions or context.

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