Godot File Delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does imply deletion is destructive, but it doesn't clarify behavior when deleting a directory without the recursive flag set, what happens with non-existent paths, or whether there's any confirmation or safety mechanism. The one useful detail is that it handles both files AND directories.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. The description is efficient and to the point. It earns its place but arguably under-specifies given the destructive nature and ambiguous recursive parameter.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. For a tool that permanently deletes project assets, the description should clearly explain recursive behavior, error handling, and restore/recovery options. At only 7 words and with 2 undocumented parameters, it is far from complete.

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 0%, and the description adds nothing about the parameters. 'recursive' is a boolean but its meaning (whether to delete directories with contents recursively) is not explained anywhere. The description says 'file or directory' but doesn't connect which parameter controls which scenario, leaving the recursive semantics entirely ambiguous.

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 'Delete a file or directory inside the project.' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (file or directory within the project). However, it doesn't mention the 'recursive' option or distinguish nuances from sibling tools like godot_file_move or godot_file_write. It's clear but minimal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool. It doesn't state when deletion is appropriate vs. destructive, doesn't mention safety considerations, and doesn't contrast with any sibling tools. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.

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