e2b_remove

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. 'Remove' implies destructive action, but the description doesn't state whether removal is recursive for directories, whether it fails on non-empty directories, whether it's irreversible, or what happens if the path doesn't exist. It also doesn't mention any permission requirements or side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, it's so brief that it sacrifices useful context, which is a trade-off. Still, for conciseness alone, it earns a 4.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return behavior (e.g., success/failure indication), error cases, or whether the operation is recursive. An agent needs more context to call this correctly and safely, especially given the destructive nature.

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 60%, with sandboxId and accessToken documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The path parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and port/username are also undocumented. The description doesn't compensate for the 40% coverage gap, but the schema covers the most critical parameters (sandboxId, accessToken). 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('a file or directory in a sandbox'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like e2b_list_dir, e2b_make_dir, e2b_move, and e2b_read_file. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., sandbox must exist, path must be valid), nor does it contrast with e2b_delete_sandbox (which removes an entire sandbox) or e2b_move (which can relocate files). An agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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