Delete Directory

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

Description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: confirms destructiveHint=true and specifies that with recursive=true, ALL contents are irreversibly deleted. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent, but description reinforces the irreversible consequence.

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?

Description is extremely concise: three sentences with no wasted words. The warning is front-loaded after the basic description, and the Args section clearly maps to parameters.

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, idempotent tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: action, arguments, and critical warning about irreversible deletion. No gaps remain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. Description repeats parameter names and types but adds a critical warning about recursive behavior, which adds value beyond schema alone.

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 action (delete a directory) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fc_delete_file (file-level deletion) and fc_safe_delete (safe delete with trash). The verb 'deletes' and resource 'directory' are specific and 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 explicitly warns about the irreversible nature when recursive=true, guiding the agent to use this tool only when intentional. It implies not to use for safe deletion (use fc_safe_delete instead) and provides clear condition for non-empty directories.

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