ms_delete_raw

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes beyond by stating the confirmation requirements (confirm_write and i_understand_this_modifies_data must be true) and the return JSON structure. It also notes the possibility of deleting non-catalog paths, adding operational context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, protocol link, and bullet-pointed arguments. It is a bit long due to the enumerated args, but the information is necessary and front-loaded. The API link is extra but potentially useful. Overall, it earns its place.

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 raw delete tool, it covers the essentials: what it does, required safeguards, path format, and return envelope. It does not elaborate on error handling beyond 'error envelope' or side effects on related data, but the confirmation flags mitigate risk. Given the output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 shoulder the burden. It lists all 7 parameters with brief meanings: path format, method default, host override, query, body, and the two confirmation booleans with required values. It doesn't give detailed structure for query/body, but those are open-ended, and it does compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. Slight improvement would be explaining that query/body are optional and typically used for filtering or payloads.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ms_delete_method and ms_delete_document by targeting arbitrary raw paths. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

It specifies the method (DELETE only) and the required confirmation flags, and implies it is for paths outside the catalog. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling deletion tools (e.g., 'use ms_delete_method for structured deletes'). This is a minor gap, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it when dealing with raw paths.

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