sassy_safe_delete

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining collision renaming, symlink handling, protected paths, and audit behavior. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations, and it does not contradict idempotentHint=true.

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 front-loaded with the core mutating-but-non-destructive behavior, then adds collision handling, symlink behavior, protections, and integration context. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter schema, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers what happens to the item, where it goes, how collisions are handled, what is refused, why this tool is required, and how to restore items later.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that the path refers to a file or directory, that symlinks are moved rather than their targets, and that protected paths are refused. It could be more explicit about path format or existence requirements, but for a single 'path' parameter this is strong compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it moves a file or directory into a _DELETE_/ staging folder rather than deleting it. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from plain deletion and from sassy_copy/sassy_move, so an agent can identify its unique role.

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 explicitly says 'Use it for any removal' and calls it 'the required replacement for rm/del-style deletion'. It also explains how it relates to sassy_copy/sassy_move: they refuse to overwrite an existing destination until it is staged here first, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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