workspace_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion is limited to files and EMPTY directories (implying non-recursive), and protected paths/roots are refused. It does not say what error or response a refused delete produces, holding it below 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the key constraint. Zero waste.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to supply the operation's limits, which it does. Minor gaps remain around recursion behavior and failure semantics for a destructive tool.

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 would ideally clarify the 'path' parameter, but it offers no syntax, relative-vs-absolute, or workspace-root semantics. The single parameter is largely self-evident from its name, so this sits at the minimum-viable baseline rather than being actively unhelpful.

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 specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('file or empty directory'), scoping the operation precisely enough to distinguish it from siblings like workspace_mkdir or workspace_move. It does not name an alternative tool directly, but the resource+scope is 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The only constraint offered ('protected paths and roots cannot be deleted') is a precondition on the target, not routing advice for choosing this tool over siblings such as workspace_move or workspace_edit_file.

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