delete_guest_file

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that recursive and protected-path deletes require approval, implying an approval gating flow, but it never states whether deletes are permanent, what constitutes a 'protected system path', or how an approvalId is obtained. Behavioral context is partial 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety constraint. No filler and nothing redundant repeats the schema.

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 5-parameter destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate: the approval gate is surfaced, but the directory flag, irreversibility, and approvalId acquisition path are left for the agent to infer.

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?

At 40% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and only partly does: 'file or directory' loosely maps to the undocumented 'directory' boolean, 'recursive deletes' maps to 'recursive', and the approval sentence hints at 'approvalId'. It still leaves the semantics of the 'directory' flag and the approval workflow unexplained.

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 ('Delete a file or directory in the guest'), which clearly separates it from the read-only siblings list_guest_files and read_guest_file. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the mutation vs. read distinction is unambiguous from the verb alone.

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 implies when to use it (removing files/directories inside a guest) and adds a key precondition: recursive deletes and protected system paths require approval. It does not name alternatives (e.g., write_guest_file for overwriting) or explain that non-recursive single-file deletes need no approval, so routing guidance remains partial.

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