delete_file

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 explicitly discloses the irreversible nature ('cannot be undone'), the recursive behavior for non-empty directories, and the scope restriction to allowed directories. This is excellent transparency for a destructive operation.

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, using four short sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds critical warnings and scope constraints. Every sentence provides essential information without wasted words.

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 delete tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers everything essential: what it deletes, irreversibility, recursive handling, and directory restrictions. It is complete enough for an agent to use safely and correctly.

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 50% (recursive has a schema description, path does not). The description adds meaningful context: 'non-empty directories and their contents' clarifies the recursive flag's behavior beyond the schema's generic 'delete directories recursively.' It also implies path semantics via 'only works within allowed directories.' However, path itself is not explicitly explained, and the schema handles recursive reasonably well.

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 the tool's function: 'Delete a file or directory.' It specifies both file and directory targets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file, write_file, and move_file. The verb 'delete' is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: use with extreme caution, cannot be undone, recursive flag for non-empty directories, and restriction to allowed directories. It implies when to use it (destructive deletion) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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