Delete host file

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee not present in the annotations: it never deletes a configured root itself. It does not detail failure modes such as missing paths or non-empty directories without recursive=true, but the core destructive boundary is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and target. Every clause earns its place: the first defines the operation and recursive behavior, and the second states a crucial safety limit. No filler or redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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 with an output schema and annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the purpose, the recursive condition, and the key safety exception. Minor ambiguity remains around what 'configured root' means and whether recursive deletion removes contents or just the directory itself, but these are acceptable gaps at this complexity.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains that path can reference a file or directory and that recursive=true enables directory deletion, while also adding the root-protection constraint on path. It does not specify path resolution or exact non-recursive directory behavior, but the essential semantics are well covered.

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?

States the operation explicitly with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a file, or a directory when recursive=true.' The safety constraint 'Never deletes a configured root itself' adds meaningful scope and distinguishes it from read, copy, move, and restore siblings. It is not a tautology and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when a file or directory needs to be removed, with recursive=true required for directories. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as file_restore, file_move, or other file operations, and it gives no 'when not to use' guidance. The root-protection statement is a behavioral constraint rather than usage direction.

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