Delete file or folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description adds real value beyond them by emphasizing permanence ('This cannot be undone') and disclosing that deleting a folder is recursive. It does not cover permission requirements or error behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences plus a single example; every line earns its place. The irreversibility warning is placed immediately after the core action statement.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema documentation, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing. No output schema exists, and none is needed for a delete 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%, so the path format and constraints are already fully documented in the schema. The description's example path reinforces that convention but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a file or a folder') plus scope ('from your Nekoweb site'). It is clearly distinguishable from read/write/move/upload siblings, and the recursion detail ('including everything inside it') removes ambiguity about folder semantics.

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 gives a concrete usage example ('Remove the old drafts folder' -> { path: ... }) that shows the calling context. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., use nekoweb_move for relocating), so it falls short of a 5.

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