delete_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry_run behavior, the copy-indicator detection logic, and the return type. However, it does not explicitly state that deletions are permanent or how originals are chosen when no copy indicator exists, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 well-structured with a concise overview, a clear Args list, a Returns line, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderately complex tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, return value, and usage examples. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return values, so the description is complete.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter, including its purpose, default value, and effect (e.g., dry_run prevents actual deletion). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 deletes duplicate files in a directory while keeping one copy. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the deletion action and the copy-indicator prioritization, making its purpose 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 clear context: it is used to delete duplicate files, with parameters controlling directory, recursion, and dry-run. It includes example calls showing preview and actual deletion, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools like find_duplicates.

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