webdav_delete_remote_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is deletion, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't elaborate on critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is recursive for directories, error handling, or confirmation prompts. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., recursion, safety checks), error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a tool that permanently removes data, this is inadequate.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema implies (a 'path' parameter). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but since the description doesn't explain what the path represents (e.g., absolute path, relative to root) or provide examples, it doesn't fully compensate, resulting in a minimal viable score.

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 file or directory from a remote WebDAV server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'webdav_move_remote_item' or 'webdav_update_remote_file' by specifying deletion, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if deletion is permanent or reversible, or if there are prerequisites like checking existence first with 'webdav_get_file_info'. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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