批量删除文件夹 (delete_folder 的批量版)。
逐个删除, 单个失败不影响其余; 返回每个路径的结果。
文件按软删进回收站处理, 30 天内可在网页端恢复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | True (默认): 递归删除每棵子树, 内部文件软删进回收站 (类似 rm -rf)。False: 仅删除空文件夹, 非空的报 folder_not_empty. | |
| folder_paths | Yes | 要删除的文件夹完整路径列表, 单次最多 50 个 |
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 discloses soft-deletion to a recycle bin, 30-day recovery, per-path failure independence, and return results—all valuable context for a destructive operation. It omits permission or rate-limit details, but the safety and failure behavior are well covered.
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 concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and scope, the second explains execution semantics, and the third covers data safety. No redundancy or 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 batch delete tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, failure handling, return structure, and data recoverability. Schema handles parameter limits and recursive semantics. Missing minor items like prerequisites or path validation, but overall sufficient for tool selection and invocation.
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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond the schema; the recycle-bin mention is general behavioral context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description explicitly states 'batch delete folders (batch version of delete_folder)', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from delete_folder by calling itself the batch version and from delete_files by targeting folders.
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 clearly indicates this is the batch version of delete_folder, implying use when multiple folders need deletion. It also explains failure isolation and per-path results, giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_files, but the batch/plural distinction and 'batch version of delete_folder' provide sufficient guidance.
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.