Delete a file or folder (recursive: true for a folder with contents). It cannot be undone: use it only when the user asked for the deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| deviceId | No | Computer name or id from list_devices. Optional with one computer online or a default set. | |
| recursive | No | ||
| workSessionId | No | Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workSessionIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work.",
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the crucial extra fact that the operation 'cannot be undone' and clarifies recursive semantics, but does not mention recoverability via undo_file_change or any permission requirements.
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 tight sentences, front-loading the destructive warning immediately after the core action with zero filler.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, irreversibility, recursion, and the usage precondition. It is nearly complete, lacking only notes on recoverability or scoping interactions with work sessions.
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 50%: deviceId and workSessionId are documented in the schema, while path is self-evident and the non-obvious 'recursive' flag is explained in the description ('true for a folder with contents'). This meaningfully compensates for the coverage gap on the parameter that most affects behavior.
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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('file or folder'), immediately distinguishing it from the copy/move/list siblings. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.
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 a clear condition: 'use it only when the user asked for the deletion.' That is an explicit when-to-use rule. It does not name alternatives such as move_path or undo_file_change, so the sibling differentiation is not complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.