Delete File

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: exact-path semantics with no glob expansion (a real footgun) and the fact that a successful result yields an undo id reversible via undo.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; the operation and its rm analogy are front-loaded, followed by the two most important behavioral caveats (no globs, undo id).

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 full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key call-time concerns: path exactness, recursion, and reversibility via undo. It trusts the schema for flag semantics, which is reasonable given 100% coverage, though it could note failure behavior on non-existent paths.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already fully documented, including recursive and ignoreIfNotExists defaults. The description only implicitly maps 'rm -r' to recursive and 'paths are exact' to the path array, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific verb (delete) and the exact resource types (files, directories, symlinks), and anchors it with a comparison to rm/rm -r so the agent immediately knows the operation's scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like move, undo, and edit.

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?

'like rm or rm -r' plus the note that globs are not expanded gives clear guidance on expectations and the recursive flag's role. It also points to undo for reverting, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as move or when deletion should be avoided.

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