delete_file

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: default recoverability on macOS (Trash), a permanent deletion flag, a safety scope limited to home directory, and an authorization prerequisite (requires allow_file_write). This adds significant context about consequences, permissions, and constraints that annotations alone do not provide.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence ('Delete a file or directory.'), followed by two compact sentences providing platform-specific behavior and safety/permission context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior, platform nuance, a safety limitation, and an authorization requirement. The only notable gap is that non-macOS behavior is not addressed (it says 'On macOS' but doesn't state default behavior on other operating systems). Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions: 'path' and 'permanent' (including its default false and meaning). The description repeats the permanent/Trash behavior but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete a file or directory') with the specific resource and additional scope ('only allows deletion within the home directory'). While it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with alternatives, the verb+resource combination is unambiguous and effectively distinguishes this from move/copy 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 implies usage by stating the core function and provides useful context (macOS Trash behavior, safety restriction to home directory, and the require allow_file_write permission). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or list exclusions (e.g., when to prefer move_file). The safety and config notes offer implied conditions, but no direct 'use this when...' guidance.

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