Remove a file from a knowledge collection.
The file itself is not deleted — only the collection membership is removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | ID of the file to remove | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. | |
| collection_id | Yes | ID of the collection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context by explaining exactly what is and is not destroyed — the file survives, only membership is removed. It does not cover auth needs or idempotency (annotation says idempotentHint=false), so it stops short of full disclosure but clearly adds value beyond the structured fields.
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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important clarifying constraint. No filler; every sentence earns its place.
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 membership-removal tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete, and the key behavioral nuance (file not deleted) is present. It is slightly thin on edge cases (e.g., behavior if the file is not in the collection) but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 file_id, collection_id, and in_workspace are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource (remove a file from a knowledge collection) and names the exact scope of the effect. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like collections_add_file, collections_remove_website, and collections_delete without opening any 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?
The description clarifies the operation's scope (membership only, not deletion), which implicitly helps route away from a true file-delete tool. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus alternatives such as files_delete or collections_delete, nor any preconditions. Usage is only implied.
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.