obsidian_delete_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to nested directories, error conditions (e.g., non-existent paths), or permissions required. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 core action ('Delete a file or directory'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 incomplete. It doesn't address safety considerations (e.g., irreversible deletion), error handling, or return values. For a delete operation, this leaves critical gaps in understanding behavioral outcomes.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('filepath' and 'confirm'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain path formatting or why 'confirm' is required). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a file or directory from the vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'obsidian_patch_content' or 'obsidian_put_content' (which modify rather than delete), but the verb 'Delete' is specific enough for basic differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete locked files), or sibling tools for related operations like 'obsidian_list_files_in_vault' to check existence first. Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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