rm

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

The description adds significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explains recursive removal for directories, non-recoverability, return value (total nodes deleted), and specific error codes (ENOENT, EINVAL). This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavioral traits.

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 three sentences: purpose, behavior, and return/errors. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 description covers the core functionality, recursive behavior, recovery warning, return value, and errors. It does not elaborate on the 'store' parameter, but the schema provides that. For a deletion tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete missing only a small detail about store usage in context.

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% with both parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It could have elaborated on the 'store' parameter but the schema already handles it.

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 starts with 'Remove a file or directory' which clearly states the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mv' (move) and 'mkdir' (create) by specifying removal and recursive behavior for directories.

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 explicitly states 'This operation is non-recoverable — there is no undo or trash,' which guides when to use (when permanent deletion is intended) and when not to (if recovery is needed). It also lists errors that help the agent handle failures, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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