删除对象

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the confirm flag must be explicitly true at runtime, and deletion is limited to files and empty directories. It stops short of describing failure behavior or irreversibility.

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?

A single compact sentence with a semicolon clause; the destructive scope is front-loaded and the confirm gate follows. No wasted words.

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 need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety hints. The description plus schema covers path, server, and the confirm gate adequately; only failure/error behavior and permission expectations are left unstated.

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% — path, server, and confirm are all documented, including confirm's runtime requirement. The description restates the confirm constraint rather than adding new semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 concrete verb+resource (delete a single file or empty directory) and adds a scope restriction that matters — non-empty directories are out of scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as move or rename, so an agent must infer the boundary from the operation name alone.

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 scope clause (single file or empty dir), which is useful guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for removing non-empty trees or relocating content. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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