ssh_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a destructive operation, it should warn about irreversibility, confirm whether deletion is permanent (no trash/recycle), and note that recursive deletion of directories is destructive. It merely states the recursive requirement but discloses no other behavioral traits like permanence or permission requirements.

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 a single efficient sentence with a clear additional clause about the recursive requirement. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Could arguably add a safety note, but as written it's concise and functional.

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?

This is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. As the sole delete operation among ssh siblings, it carries high safety responsibility. The description is too thin for a destructive remote operation—it doesn't address irreversibility, partial-failure behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the target doesn't exist. For a mutation tool, more context is warranted.

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 67% (path and target are described in the schema). The description adds the key semantic detail that recursive=true is required for directories, but this echoes what the schema's boolean default already implies. It adds no information about target format beyond what the schema provides, and doesn't clarify path semantics further.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Delete a remote file or directory' with the specific resource (remote file/directory). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only delete operation among the ssh_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly name which siblings to prefer over.

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 provides one key usage condition: directories require recursive=true. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., no mention of when not to delete, no references to sibling tools, no safety considerations about deleting remote resources).

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