remove_dir

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a destructive mutation but says nothing about whether removal is recursive, what happens to directory contents, reversibility, or required permissions, which for a delete operation is a significant gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness leaves the definition under-specified overall.

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, unannotated mutation tool, the description omits preconditions, side effects, and parameter format; the existing output schema covers return values, but everything else is missing. An agent would have to guess at safety and path semantics before invoking it.

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 single required `path` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about its format, whether it is absolute or a runtime identifier, or how it relates to the path used when adding. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a directory") and scopes it to directories "added at runtime", which implicitly pairs it with the add_dir sibling. It stops short of naming add_dir or any alternative explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 qualifier "that was added at runtime" implies a precondition (only runtime-registered directories can be removed) but never frames it as a rule or says what happens if the directory was not added at runtime. There is no mention of when to prefer this over remove_chat or other cleanup tools.

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