syncnology_delete_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the irreversible nature of the operation and the confirmation gate, which is critical safety information for a destructive tool. This is strong transparency, though it omits minor details like recursive folder deletion or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and its permanent consequence, followed by a direct safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple destructive delete tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, irreversibility, and the necessary confirmation protocol. Missing details like permission requirements or path existence are non-essential given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully compensates by explaining that 'path' is the specific file/folder to delete and clarifying the role of 'confirm=True' (only after explicit user confirmation). It does not specify path format or other parameter details, but for this two-parameter tool, the added semantics are substantial.

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 it deletes a file or folder on the NAS, explicitly noting it is permanent and irreversible. This distinguishes it from sibling syncnology_delete_download_task by specifying the resource type (file/folder vs download task).

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?

Provides clear context: it should be called with confirm=True only after explicit user confirmation of the specific path. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative non-destructive tools like list_files or get_file_info, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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