File Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally: it discloses that this is a hard delete, that files do not land in /vol1/<uid>/.@#local/trash, that file_trash_list cannot find them, and that file_trash_restore is useless. This irreversibility disclosure is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its destructive nature, then backs it with the empirical trash finding. Each sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose in the explanatory clause, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description fully covers the safety/reversibility dimension that annotations would otherwise provide. It omits permission/auth prerequisites and confirmation semantics, which keeps it just short of complete for a destructive write tool.

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 all five parameters (host, path, port, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource pairing ('删除文件/目录') and immediately qualifies the operation as a write. Crucially it distinguishes itself from trash-related siblings by declaring that file_trash_list and file_trash_restore do not apply here, so an agent can tell it apart from those tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context (write operation, permanent deletion) and a pre-call warning ('调用前请自行确认'). It also implicitly rules out the usual recovery alternative by stating the trash tools are ineffective, which is strong routing guidance. It does not, however, name any explicit alternative for the deletion itself.

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