delete_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does convey the key destructive scope (file vs empty directory vs recursive non-empty directory). It stops short of stating permanence/irreversibility, permission requirements, or error behavior for missing paths, which would be expected for a delete operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it covers both parameters and the main behavioral condition efficiently. Every word contributes to the call decision.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the core behavior is present, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, the absence of annotations and lack of irreversibility/error/permission detail leave some gaps an agent would need to discover at runtime.

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 must add meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies the recursive parameter's effect (allows deleting non-empty directories) and implicitly treats path as the file/directory to delete, but it does not document path format, directory/file disambiguation rules, or edge cases.

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 states a clear verb+resource: it deletes a file or an empty directory, and immediately adds the recursive=true condition that distinguishes directory deletion cases. This is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from move_path or write_text_file without inspecting schemas.

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 recursive condition gives implicit guidance: without recursive=true only empty directories can be deleted, so agents trying to remove a non-empty directory know to pass the flag. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools (e.g., when to move instead of delete) or state conditions like path must exist.

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