server_file_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it discloses that this is destructive, that a preview is returned first, that confirmation is user-gated, and that recursive deletes an entire tree. It leaves out permission requirements (what as_root changes), error behavior on non-empty folders without recursive, and whether deletes are recoverable.

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 critical warning and the preview-then-confirm flow are front-loaded, which is good. However, "Destructive." appears twice and "Never forced." is a fragment whose meaning is ambiguous, so the text is short but not tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the safety workflow is well covered. For a destructive, zero-annotation tool with 0% param coverage, though, missing host targeting and as_root privilege implications leave an agent unable to predict failures or scope correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain 5 parameters. It meaningfully clarifies two of the least obvious ones (confirm, recursive) and implicitly path, but host and as_root are never mentioned, leaving their scoping and privilege semantics undocumented anywhere.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a file or an empty folder") and scopes it to the Docker host, which separates it from container-level siblings like docker_remove. It doesn't explicitly contrast with server_file_move or server_file_write, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a concrete two-step workflow: call once for a preview, then re-run with confirm=true after the user agrees. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer docker_remove for containers or non-Docker-host filesystems), but the sequencing guidance is unusually clear.

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