delete_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the deletion is recursive, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the basic action. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist), side effects, or confirmation prompts, which are critical for a destructive 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (action, resource, environment, and recursive nature) with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and scope but misses critical context like safety warnings, return values, or error conditions. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a high-risk operation.

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 100%, with the parameter 'path' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format constraints, or special cases). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a file or directory on the VPS'), with the additional detail of being recursive. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remove' or 'unlink' tools by specifying the scope and target environment.

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 implies usage for deleting files/directories on a VPS, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like needing an active VPS connection from 'connect_vps', or alternatives for non-destructive operations). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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