remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action is permanent and instructs verifying the path, which is critical behavioral context for a destructive operation. It also notes that recursive must be true for non-empty directories, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't mention what happens on failure (e.g., missing path) or whether it returns any confirmation.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical warning is placed immediately after. 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety context (permanence, path verification, recursive requirement). It doesn't describe return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers the bar. It could mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist), but the critical operational details are present.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the critical warning that recursive MUST be true for non-empty directories, which reinforces the schema's own note. This adds some value beyond the schema, but the schema already covers the parameter meanings well, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('Removes') and resource ('a file or directory'), which distinguishes it from siblings like copy, move, edit, and write. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous and the scope is clear.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to delete a file or directory) but doesn't explicitly contrast it with alternatives like move (which could relocate instead of delete) or provide conditions for when not to use it. The permanent-destruction warning serves as a caution but not a usage guideline.

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