delete_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses recursive directory deletion, but omits critical behavior for a destructive operation: whether deletion is permanent, whether permissions or confirmation are required, and how errors are handled.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and structurally appropriate, even though it omits necessary safety details elsewhere.

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 recursive delete tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is under-specified. It mentions recursion but lacks safety, permanence, and path semantics, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.

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%, and the only parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description adds only that path may refer to a file or directory; it does not clarify path format, relative vs. absolute paths, or constraints.

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 has a specific verb and resource: delete a file or directory, and it adds the important scope detail that directory deletion is recursive. It distinguishes the tool clearly from read/create/edit siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with other deletion mechanisms or state permanence.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or cautionary conditions. It does not warn when not to use it or mention confirmation/irreversibility expectations.

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