fs_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: files are moved to trash, not hard-deleted, with a 24h retention, and restoration is possible. It also details external agent blocking and local user 2FA. This is substantial coverage, though it doesn't specify error handling or what happens after retention expires.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core behavior front-loaded. It uses minimal words to convey critical safety and security information. Each sentence serves a purpose, from trash staging to access restrictions.

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 tool's complexity (with security layers), the description covers most essentials: what happens (trash), retention, restoration, access controls, and user verification. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Minor gaps include handling of non-existent paths or batch operations, but these are not critical.

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 0%, but there's only one parameter 'paths', and the description mentions 'delete file(s)' implying paths. However, the description doesn't clarify whether paths can be directories or glob patterns, nor does it explain the expected format. The schema's 'array of strings' is minimal, and the description adds limited value beyond that.

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 it deletes file(s), with the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'file(s)'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the trash staging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from write/overwrite or other mutation tools, but the context makes the purpose clear.

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 when to use it (for deletion) but doesn't detail when not to use it or alternatives. It mentions restrictions for external agents and local user authentication, which guides usage, but lacks explicit comparison to other tools like fs_move or fs_overwrite for similar operations.

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