ds_delete_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses critical behaviors: irreversible deletion, task failures on next execution, the specific error 20018 for non-empty folders, and the recursive deletion behavior. This is rich, actionable context.

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 slightly longer than necessary but every section serves a purpose—warning, behavior, args, returns. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the most important caution. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description fully covers the operation's behavior, parameter semantics, and return format. It addresses the main edge case (non-empty folders) and consequences, making it quite complete for a delete tool with only two parameters.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains resource_id as Resource ID and clarifies that recursive deletes children for folders with a default of False, adding meaning beyond the raw schema fields. It could elaborate on return fields but is adequate.

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 'Delete a resource (file or folder)' with a specific verb and resource type, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for projects, workflows, etc. It immediately clarifies the scope of the operation.

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: warns about irreversibility and impact on workflow tasks, and gives explicit guidance on using recursive=True for non-empty folders. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives among sibling tools, though the purpose clarity implicitly differentiates it.

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