Manage files

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true, the description names which operation classes can change or remove local data and which leave files unchanged. It also discloses that parameters are validated against a closed per-operation schema. This materially improves the agent's understanding of a large, destructive-capable tool and does not contradict the annotations.

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, no filler. The use condition is front-loaded, the per-operation constraint is stated clearly, and the read/write safety split and sibling routing are compressed into the remaining sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite managing 29 sub-operations, the description gives the essential orientation: domain scope, one-operation rule, destructive vs read-only behavior, and a fallback to read_file. With such a rich input schema and an output schema present, the individual operation details are already covered structurally, so nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says ('parameters must contain only that operation's arguments and are validated against its closed schema'), adding no new meaning to individual parameters. The rich schema carries the parameter semantics.

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's scope: files, directories, archives, and filesystem search on this computer. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read_file by routing single known text files there. The verb is somewhat generic ('manage'), but combined with the title and operation list it is clear enough.

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 states when to use the tool ('task is about files, directories, archives, or filesystem search'), gives an explicit alternative ('Use read_file for one known text file'), and also separates read/search operations from write/edit/delete operations. An agent can reliably decide between this tool and the read_file sibling without opening the schema.

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