ssh_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is transparent about the operation's side effects, auto-detection logic, the specific SFTP ops used (unlink/rmdir), and the non-recursive limitation. It stops short of disclosing permission requirements or exact failure behavior, but for a destructive tool it is unusually explicit about what happens and what does not.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the mechanics in one clause, and the third gives the necessary alternative and rationale. The critical scoping constraint (non-recursive) is front-loaded and the rationale for the alternative is clearly articulated.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, its limitations, and the recommended alternative, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it. It does not describe the return value or failure output, but since the tool is simple and no output schema exists, this is a minor omission rather than a usability gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the path refers to a file or empty directory and that deletion is non-recursive. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without adding significant extra meaning.

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 precise verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a file or empty directory on a remote host via SFTP'), and defines the scope of supported targets (files, symlinks, empty dirs). It also distinguishes itself from ssh_exec for recursive deletes, preventing confusion among the many SSH siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Recursive directory delete is intentionally NOT supported') and names the exact alternative to use instead ('use ssh_exec with rm -rf explicitly'). This gives the agent both a clear trigger condition and a fallback path with no ambiguity.

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