Delete File

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

Annotations already say destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing irreversibility, the confirmation mechanism that makes calls return without deleting, the error behavior for clients that cannot prompt, and the workspace-root safeguard. This is rich, actionable behavioral 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 dense but every sentence contributes: scope, irreversibility, path form, recursive behavior, prompting caveat, and root restrictions. It is slightly long due to the confirmation explanation, but that complexity is necessary and not wasted.

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 tool with three simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the critical call-time facts: limits, required flags, interaction behavior, irreversibility, and an explicit prohibition. An agent has enough to call this correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100% and schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful meaning by emphasizing that paths must be passed as an array, that there is no single-path form, and that recursive=true triggers per-directory confirmation. It does not delve into ignoreIfNotExists, but the schema handles that parameter well.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the exact resources affected (files, directories, symlinks). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this from the sibling create, edit, and move operations.

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 gives clear operational context: the 1000-item cap, the need for recursive=true on non-empty directories, the interactive confirmation requirement, and the workspace-root restriction. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead, but the conditions for safe use are well specified.

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