sandbox_file_remove

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

The description does not indicate whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether directories are deleted recursively, or what happens if the file/directory doesn't exist. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it fails to address.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (only two parameters) and no output schema, the description is borderline adequate. However, it omits critical behavioral details like recursive deletion behavior, error handling for nonexistent paths, and whether reversion is possible, making it incomplete for a mutation 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters (sandboxId, path) are already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: deleting files or directories in a sandbox. It includes the verb 'Delete' and specifies the resource ('file or directory in a sandbox'). While it effectively distinguishes from siblings like sandbox_file_list (list) and sandbox_file_read (read), it could more explicitly contrast with sandbox_file_mkdir (create) or sandbox_file_rename (rename).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sandbox_exec rm or operations on directories. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), safety considerations, or explicit exclusions.

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