删除文件夹 (类似 rmdir 或 rm -r)。
内部 ready/locked 文件按"软删进回收站"处理, 30 天后才物删 OSS 字节;
用户可在该窗口期内通过回收站恢复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | False (默认): 文件夹必须为空 (无子文件夹 + 无文件), 否则报 folder_not_empty。True: 递归删除整棵子树, 内部所有文件软删进回收站 (类似 rm -rf). | |
| folder_path | Yes | 要删除的文件夹完整路径 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects itself. It does so well by explaining that ready/locked files are soft-deleted to a recycle bin, physical OSS deletion occurs after 30 days, and users can restore within that window. This is critical safety context for a destructive operation.
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: the first states the purpose, the second discloses the soft-delete behavior. There is no redundant information, and the most important safety detail is front-loaded.
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 core safety behavior (soft delete, restore window) and the schema provides the folder_not_empty error for non-recursive use. Minor gaps remain: no distinction from delete_folders sibling and no description of return/response, but for a delete tool with strong schema 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: folder_path and recursive are fully documented, with recursive's description detailing empty-folder vs recursive subtree behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 it deletes a folder ('删除文件夹') and uses the rmdir/rm -r analogy to convey single-folder deletion semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file (file deletion) and delete_folders (plural/batch deletion), even though the latter isn't explicitly named.
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 rmdir/rm -r analogy implies when to use the recursive flag (empty vs non-empty folder), and the schema's recursive parameter adds explicit empty-folder constraints. However, there is no direct guidance on when to choose delete_folder over delete_folders for multiple folders, nor any mention of prerequisites like permissions.
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.
Tools are largely distinct with clear purposes. Some potential confusion exists between upload_file (a convenience wrapper) and the upload_init/chunk/complete sequence, but descriptions help clarify. The inclusion of scrape_url feels out of place but is also distinct.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_folder, delete_file, download_file). However, 'file_read' breaks the pattern (should be read_file), and 'get_file_info' uses get_ while others use list_. Overall minor inconsistency.
With 25 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable for a file management server that includes upload, download, sharing, and folder operations. A few tools (like scrape_url) seem tangential, but overall the scope justifies the count.
The tool surface covers most core file and folder operations (create, read, update/move, delete, list, search, upload, download, share, zip). Notable gaps include no rename_file tool and no ability to update file metadata. Still, the set is fairly complete for basic file management.