delete_path

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it omits critical safety information such as irreversibility, error behavior on non-empty directories, or permission requirements. It only states the operation and a precondition, failing to set expectations for a destructive action.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose and key constraint without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, as a destructive operation, it lacks warnings about permanent deletion or behavior with non-empty directories, leaving gaps for an agent to misuse the tool without additional context.

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 input schema already documents the 'path' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Delete') and specifies the resource ('a file or an empty directory'), making the tool's purpose obvious. The qualifier 'empty directory' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_recursive, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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 implies usage scope by limiting deletions to files and empty directories, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'use delete_recursive for non-empty directories') or provide any alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer exclusions from the sibling list.

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