Cross-Platform Filesystem MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a directory and its contents, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error conditions (e.g., non-existent path), or side effects. For a destructive tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information 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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, safety warnings, return values, or error handling. For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('path' and 'recursive') adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain path format, recursive behavior implications, or default values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('a directory and its contents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_file' by specifying directory deletion rather than file deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other directory operations like 'create_directory' or 'move_item'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., directory must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for non-empty directories without recursive flag), or direct alternatives like 'move_item' for relocation instead of deletion. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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