Delete files or directories

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: deletion is immediate and unrecoverable, there is no trash/undo, what the return payload looks like, and the pool-root prohibition. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide and contains no contradiction.

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 action, then flows into safety warning, alternatives, and confirmation steps. Every sentence contributes unique value, and no filler or redundancy inflates the length.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, irreversibility, alternative, precondition checks, and return format. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, but the description enriches the sole parameter by clarifying it accepts a single path or list, emphasizes absolute paths (already in schema), and adds the critical constraint 'never pass a pool root,' which is absent from the schema. This adds real meaning beyond the structured definition.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete one or more files/directories from the ZSpace NAS,' which states a specific verb, resource, and permanence. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming zspace_move as the reversible alternative, so an agent can choose correctly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('only when you are sure the items are no longer needed'), when-not-to-use (reversible case → zspace_move), and pre-call safety steps (confirm paths with zspace_ls or zspace_search, never pass a pool root). This exhaustively routes the agent around misuse.

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