safe_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that paths are validated against system-critical and user-protected lists, that blast-radius limits apply, that deletion is actually a move to a quarantine folder (~/.guardian-mcp/trash), and that large targets require a two-step confirm. It omits error/refusal behavior and the quarantine retention lifecycle, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: safety checks first, then the recoverability guarantee, then the confirm workflow. Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and free of filler.

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-operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, safety gating, storage semantics, and the multi-step flow. Minor gaps remain around what an agent sees on a refusal or how the quarantine is eventually emptied.

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 50% – 'path' is documented but 'confirm' is not. The description compensates by explaining confirm's purpose (second call after a size warning) rather than just restating the type, which is meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (delete) and resource (file or directory) and immediately scopes it with the safety checks it performs. An agent can distinguish it from safe_write and safe_execute purely on the resource/action pairing without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit conditional usage for the two-phase flow: 'If the target is large, call again with confirm:true after reviewing the size warning.' That is actionable guidance, though it never names when to prefer a sibling tool or what conditions make deletion inadvisable beyond the built-in checks.

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