eliminar_archivoMoves a file to recoverable trash and creates a backup if enabled, using SHA-256 verification and confirmation for controlled deletion.
Mueve un archivo a la papelera recuperable y crea copia si esta activada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruta | Yes | ||
| confirmar | No | ||
| aprobacion_id | No | ||
| sha256_esperado | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully qualifies this by clarifying the deletion is recoverable (papelera recuperable) and may create a backup copy. That nuance materially changes how an agent should treat the risk, adding value beyond the raw hint. It still omits the sha256 verification, confirmation, and approval 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its key behavioral qualifier with zero filler. Well-sized for the operation.
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?
A destructive mutation with an approval-id parameter and a required hash precondition, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description leaves the whole safety/authorization workflow and the meaning of the required hash unexplained, which is a substantial gap for a tool of this complexity.
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% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. The required sha256_esperado (an optimistic-concurrency/verification token), confirmar, and aprobacion_id (an approval workflow) are never mentioned or explained.
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: it moves a file to a recoverable trash, not a permanent delete. This distinguishes it conceptually from the removal implied by eliminar_carpeta, though it never names that sibling. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus eliminar_carpeta, nor when the trash copy versus backup copy applies. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer all routing decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.