Delete a path

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful safety behavior beyond that: the mandatory dry-run inspection step, the required confirmation token, the hard refusal of /, and the dependence on Termux Android permissions. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety workflow and scope limit. No repetition, no filler, and the destructive nature is stated immediately.

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 filesystem tool with no output schema, this description covers what an agent needs: what gets deleted, the required safety dance, the root-path guard, and the permission model. The remaining parameter details (recursive) are fully documented in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds sequencing semantics for dry_run and confirm that the schema alone does not convey: dry_run is meant to be used first to inspect the target, and the second call must carry confirm="DELETE" rather than using dry_run. The recursive parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full 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 opens with a specific verb and resource set ('Delete a file, symlink or directory'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like copy_path, move_path, and mkdir. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step procedure (dry_run=true first, then confirm="DELETE") and names a hard refusal condition (root /). It doesn't mention alternatives such as move_path for non-destructive removal, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance, but the intended usage sequence is very clear.

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