eliminar_carpetaMoves a complete folder to the recoverable local trash after verifying its contents, helping safely delete authorized workspace folders without permanent loss.
Mueve una carpeta completa a la papelera local recuperable tras verificar todo su contenido.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruta | Yes | ||
| confirmar | No | ||
| aprobacion_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: the deletion is a move to a recoverable local trash and is preceded by content verification. What is missing is any disclosure of the confirmation/approval requirements implied by confirmar and aprobacion_id.
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 dense, front-loaded sentence that packs the action, scope, and recoverability note without waste. It is efficient, though very terse given the tool's operational complexity.
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 mutation with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a required approval identifier, the description omits the confirmation/approval mechanics entirely. Annotations cover safety flags, but the operational workflow an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.
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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. It never mentions ruta, confirmar, or aprobacion_id, leaving the confirmation and UUID-approval workflow completely unexplained.
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 (mueve/elimina) and resource (una carpeta completa), and clarifies the outcome is a recoverable local trash rather than permanent deletion. It implicitly distinguishes itself from eliminar_archivo by scoping to folders, but does not name or route to that sibling.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites despite the presence of confirmar and aprobacion_id parameters that clearly gate the operation. The agent must infer the deletion workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.