rm

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose the full behavioral impact. It mentions recursive deletion, which is helpful, but omits whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires confirmation, or what happens on failure. For a destructive tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately short for such a simple operation.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It lacks irreversible-action warnings, usage guidance, and any note about return values or error behavior. A competent agent could invoke it with a path, but it would not understand the full consequences of doing so.

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 only defines 'path' as a string with no description. The description adds that the target can be a file or folder, giving some semantic meaning to the parameter. However, it does not specify path format (absolute/relative), trailing slash expectations, or directory-tree behavior beyond 'recursively'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('file or folder') and adds a clarifying scope ('on the board') plus recursive behavior. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like ls, read, write, or exec, which describe different operations.

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, nor any prerequisites or cautionary warnings. While 'delete' is self-explanatory as an operation, the description does not say 'use when you want to remove files/folders' or mention when not to use it, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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