ecp_files_delete_multiple

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns of deletion but doesn't state that the operation is irreversible, whether confirmation is required beyond the confirm parameter, whether it's recursive for folders, or whether there are any safeguards, error behaviors, or implications for the filesystem. This is a destructive operation with a `confirm` parameter, so those details are critical.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It earns its place with no padding. Extremely concise.

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 batch operation with two parameters (confirm constraint, string array) and zero schema descriptions, this is thin. It doesn't state that confirm must be exactly true, whether the array accepts full paths vs relative paths, whether items are deleted recursively, or what the confirmation pattern is. The high-consequence nature of the operation demands more.

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 0% and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It clarifies that file_paths refers to 'multiple files/folders', which is some value, but it doesn't explain the confirm-requires-true contract, path format expectations, or deletion semantics. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not enough to achieve a 3.

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 states 'Delete multiple files/folders' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (files/folders), which clearly conveys the tool's core action. It distinguishes reasonably from the sibling ecp_files_delete (singular) by implying batch operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_files_delete, ecp_files_move, or ecp_files_rename. There's no context about batching use cases, prerequisites, or when the singular delete is preferable. The agent gets no selection help beyond the name.

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