删除路径

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by requiring interactive_feedback approval and forbidding root deletion. It does not discuss irreversibility or non-empty directory handling, but the destructive annotation covers the core safety concern.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and each sentence carries a meaningful constraint or instruction. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential safety rules.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits important invocation details: the semantics of the `recursive` parameter, whether deletion is permanent, and what counts as success or failure. It covers approval and root prohibition, but an agent still lacks enough information to confidently use the recursive option.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining `path` and `recursive`, but it does not. It only implies that path refers to a workspace-relative file or directory. The meaning of `recursive` and the behavior when a directory is non-empty and recursive=false are entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('删除' / delete) and a precise resource ('工作区内文件或目录' / files or directories in the workspace). It also adds a clear scope restriction by prohibiting deletion of the workspace root. No sibling tool performs deletion, so the purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: always request approval through interactive_feedback, and never delete the workspace root. It does not mention alternatives such as move_path for non-destructive relocation, but the destructive nature and the explicit constraints are clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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