sftp_rm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses deletion but not irreversibility, permissions needed, error handling, or behavior when recursive is false on a directory. The recursive parameter is documented in schema but not highlighted in description.

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 sentences are efficient and front-load the action. However, the brevity sacrifices important behavioral details for a destructive tool.

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?

The tool performs a destructive operation yet lacks output schema, safety warnings, or details on how recursive deletion works. Connection guidance is partial; missing prerequisites like active connection state.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by elaborating on alias/host omission for single connections, but does not enhance understanding of other parameters like path, recursive, or confirmation token.

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 the tool deletes remote files or directories (specific verb+resource). It is distinct from sibling tools like sftp_ls, sftp_mkdir, etc., and the addition of server specification context further clarifies the action.

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 basic guidance on server selection (alias vs host, single connection case) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., exec commands for deletion) and does not mention prerequisites like having an active connection.

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