delete_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. For a destructive operation like deletion, it does not disclose whether directory deletion is recursive, whether deletion is permanent or moves to trash, whether there's any undo, or what errors occur for non-existent/empty-pattern paths. The 'inside an allowed folder' constraint is the only behavioral note, which is thin 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 sentence with zero waste. It's efficient and front-loaded with the action verb. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than concise, given the tool's destructive nature.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage. The description fails to cover critical operational details: recursive behavior for directories, deletion permanence, confirmation requirements, or the meaning of 'allowed folder.' Given the tool's simplicity (1 param) some brevity is acceptable, but destructive tools deserve more disclosure than this provides.

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 the single 'path' parameter. It does not explain the expected path format (absolute vs relative, file vs directory), whether wildcards/globs are supported, or how directory paths differ semantically from file paths. The only hint is that it operates 'inside an allowed folder,' but no format specifics are given.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Delete a file or directory') and adds helpful scope ('inside an allowed folder'), making the action clear. It distinguishes from siblings like read_file, write_file, create_file since deletion is a distinct operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explain when to choose this over sibling tools or state whether it recursively deletes directories, requires confirmation, or has restrictions. 'Inside an allowed folder' hints at permission constraints but gives no actionable guidance about when this tool is appropriate vs destructive alternatives.

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