Delete a remote path

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add detail — and it does: deletion is permanent (no trash/undo) and directory targets are removed recursively, which is the single most important behavioral fact for a destructive call. It stops short of covering permissions, failure modes for nonexistent paths, or partial-recursion failures.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive nature and the file-vs-directory distinction both land before the scoping clause.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with a fully described schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what matters most (permanence and recursion). Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the path does not exist.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the $HOME-relative path semantics. The description restates the $HOME constraint and adds nothing about device_id resolution or path edge cases, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Permanently delete') plus the exact resource scope: one file, or a directory recursively, on the remote device relative to $HOME. The delete operation is unmistakably distinct from siblings like pi_path_rename, pi_file_write, and pi_files_list.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., rename instead of delete to preserve data). 'Permanently' hints at caution without stating prerequisites or confirmation expectations.

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