delete_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversible nature of the operation and that recursive deletion is supported, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects like permission errors or if the operation is permanent vs. trash.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a cautionary note. Every word earns its place with no redundant fluff.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the main behavior, the recursive option, and the irreversible caution. It does not explain return values or error handling, but with no output schema and simple semantics, this is adequate.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters (path and recursive) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing that recursive deletion is supported, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_path or read_file. The mention of recursive deletion for directories adds specificity.

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 implies when to use the tool (deleting files/directories) and warns to 'Use with caution,' but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like move_path or specify when not to use it. No exclusions are given.

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