delete_items

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 tool deletes files/directories, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletions are permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., if some paths don't exist), or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 does not address critical context like safety warnings, return values (e.g., success/failure status), or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the parameter 'paths' clearly documented in the schema as 'An array of relative paths (files or directories) to delete.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 target ('multiple specified files or directories'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_items' or 'replace_content' in terms of destructive intent, though the verb 'Delete' inherently implies removal.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system files), or sibling tools for related operations like 'move_items' for relocation instead of deletion.

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