jms_sftp_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing destructive behavior. It only mentions the recursive requirement for directories, but fails to explain the confirm parameter, irreversibility, permissions, or what happens on errors, which are critical for a delete 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. While it is concise, it omits important parameter and safety details, so it is efficient but incomplete.

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 the delete operation has 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not address the confirm flag, expected output, error scenarios, or session requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains recursive, but the confirm parameter—likely crucial for confirming a destructive operation—is not mentioned, and path and session_handle are only implied by name.

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 function: delete an approved path, with the specific recursive behavior for directories. This distinguishes it from sibling SFTP tools like list, stat, mkdir, upload, and download.

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?

It provides a clear context for use by stating that directories require recursive=true. However, it does not explicitly indicate when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for non-delete operations.

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