efs_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by noting that recursive must be set for directories and that an automatic backup is created before deletion, which mitigates the danger of a destructive operation. It does not specify backup storage location or recovery procedures, but the essential safety behavior is covered.

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 no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action, includes a direct parameter instruction, and a safety note—all in under 15 words.

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 straightforward delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, how to handle directories, and the automatic backup safety mechanism. It does not detail error behaviors or backup location, but for a simple tool this is reasonably complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('Path to delete' and 'Delete directories'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by giving a concrete usage hint ('Set recursive: true for directories') and clarifying the primary resource scope ('file or directory'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Delete file or directory' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like efs_write, efs_edit, and efs_move. The mention of recursive behavior for directories further clarifies scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (deleting files/directories) and includes a parameter usage instruction ('Set recursive: true for directories'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though sibling tool names make the distinction obvious.

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