Remove Remote Path Recursively

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's addition of 'recursively' provides some extra behavioral context. However, it omits details like handling of non-existent paths, symlink follow behavior, or confirmation prompts. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds marginal value.

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, short sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent 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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about error conditions, irreversibility, or return values, which are important for a destructive tool. The completeness is acceptable but not excellent.

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 descriptions for both 'path' and 'sessionId'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 'Removes files or directories recursively' clearly states the verb (removes) and resource (files/directories), and includes the key behavior 'recursively', distinguishing it from sibling tools like fs_read or fs_list. The name fs_rmrf further reinforces a destructive recursive removal.

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 (e.g., fs_rename for moving, or individual file deletion), nor does it warn about the destructive nature or prerequisites like permissions. An agent has no context for safe invocation.

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