delete

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details cache eviction, statuses (deleted, would_delete, not_found), explains that not_found is not an error, and describes symlink behavior. This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured with separate sections for main action, normal statuses, constraints, and args. Every sentence is informative without unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 output schema exists (no need to explain return values), the description covers all aspects: behavior, constraints, parameter semantics, and error handling. It is complete for a 2-parameter tool.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section explaining both parameters: path (absolute or relative to project root) and dry_run (preview behavior). This adds full context 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 uses the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'one file or one symlink path', clearly distinguishing from siblings like batch_edit or clear. It also explicitly states 'single-path removal' to avoid ambiguity.

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 advises 'Use this for explicit single-path removal instead of shelling out', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lists constraints (no globs, no recursive, no real-directory delete) but does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'clear'.

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