Delete files or directories on an Android device via ADB, optionally recursively or as root, while blocking dangerous paths like /system.
Delete a device file or (recursive=True) directory. DESTRUCTIVE. Refuses obviously dangerous roots like '/', '/system', '/data'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remote | Yes | ||
| serial | No | ||
| as_root | No | ||
| recursive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two important traits: the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and it refuses obviously dangerous roots like '/', '/system', '/data'. It stops short of covering irreversibility or the root/permission requirements of the as_root path.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, with the destructive warning and guardrail surfaced immediately. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive, unannotated file operation, the description covers the key safety signal and refusal behavior but omits permission/root semantics and irreversibility, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.
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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies recursive=True; the meaning of remote, serial, and especially as_root (root escalation requirements) is left undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('Delete a device file or ... directory') and scopes it to device files, distinguishing it from the many app-management and I/O siblings (write_file, pull, push, make_dir). An agent can identify the operation immediately.
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?
Usage is implied by the description and the recursive flag is explained, but no alternatives are named (e.g., uninstall or clear_app_data for app data) and no prerequisites are stated for the as_root path. It does hint at a guardrail for dangerous roots, which is closer to behavior than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.