remove_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic removal action but does not mention irreversibility, behavior on non-existent paths, whether directories can be removed, or any side effects. For a destructive operation this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action and scope.

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 minimally viable for a one-parameter file operation: the schema documents the parameter fully and the description states the action. However, because it is a destructive operation with no annotations, it should mention irreversibility or path/directory behavior to be fully complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameter documentation with 'Array of file paths to remove', so the description does not need to add much. It adds the sandbox filesystem scope, but no further semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Remove') on a specific resource ('files from the sandbox filesystem'). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_files, write_files, list_files, and execute_command without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as using execute_command for more complex deletion logic. There are also no usage conditions or caveats stated, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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