delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool automatically detects file vs. directory type and performs recursive deletion for directories, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, but the core destructive behavior is adequately disclosed for a delete 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 redundant and verbose. It repeats the 'RECOMMENDED - PRIMARY DELETION TOOL' phrase, includes a long keywords list, and has both English and Chinese sections that restate the same information. The content could be condensed to a few sentences without losing meaning, making it less efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and key behavioral details (auto-detection, recursive deletion). It lacks some safety warnings (e.g., permanence) but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides a detailed description of the 'path' parameter, including examples and explanation. The tool description adds little beyond that, repeating the auto-detection concept but not introducing new parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation 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 identifies this as the primary deletion tool for any file or directory, with a specific verb ('DELETE'), explicit resource ('any file or directory'), and distinct positioning as the 'MAIN deletion tool' versus sibling tools like delete_file and delete_directory. It also states the auto-detection behavior, which differentiates it from type-specific deletion tools.

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 for ALL deletion operations' and lists concrete use cases (remove files, directories, temp files, build artifacts, old backups), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, falling short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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