delete_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the guardrail behavior (confirm requirement) and that recursive is needed for non-empty directories. But it does not mention irreversibility, error handling, or permission requirements, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary content. The first sentence states the main purpose; the second adds essential conditions. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive nature and no output schema, the description covers the core action, recursion requirement, and guardrail confirmation. It leaves some ambiguity about distro behavior and error responses, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a delete 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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that recursive is for non-empty directories and confirm is a guardrail confirmation. It does not explain the distro parameter, and path semantics are only lightly implied ('file or directory'). It partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 directory in WSL', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like move_file or create_directory. The scope is unambiguous.

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 specific usage conditions: recursive directory deletion requires recursive=true and may require confirm=true for shallow paths, which is clear operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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