ftp_rm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the destructive action and the important recursive requirement for non-empty directories. However, it does not mention permanence, failure behavior, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the recursive condition is stated immediately after, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 the primary action and the key recursive condition, and an output schema exists to describe return values. Still, for a destructive tool with no annotations and sparse parameter documentation, it lacks edge-case behavior and guidance relative to sibling FTP tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies recursive behavior and hints at the access_hash scope, but it does not explain path format or the agent_id parameter, so the compensation is only partial.

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 action ('Remove') and a clear resource ('arquivo ou diretório') scoped to 'neste hash'. This unambiguous deletion purpose distinguishes it from siblings like ftp_ls, ftp_put, ftp_mv, and ftp_cp.

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 provides clear context: use it to delete a file or directory, and sets the condition that non-empty folders require recursive=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the core usage context is clear.

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