Deletes a directory and its nested contents recursively by default, requiring confirm: true to proceed.
Delete a directory. Recursive by default so it removes nested contents too. DESTRUCTIVE — requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | Must be true to proceed | |
| recursive | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares the operation DESTRUCTIVE, discloses that recursion is the default so nested contents are removed, and states the confirm: true prerequisite. It does not address irreversibility, error behavior on missing paths, or permission requirements, so it stops short of a 5.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive warning and confirm requirement front-loaded where an agent will read them before acting.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical concerns: what is destroyed, the recursion default, and the confirmation gate. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and whether recursion can be disabled safely, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is only 33% (only confirm is documented), and the description compensates meaningfully by stating that recursive defaults to true and that confirm must be true. 'path' is self-evident. It could still clarify whether recursive can be set to false to guard against non-empty directories.
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?
The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a directory'), and the implicit contrast with the sibling delete_file is clear from the resource alone. It is not spelled out which sibling to prefer when, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 resource type, and the confirm gate hints at the intended workflow, but the description never says when to choose this over delete_file or what happens if you need non-recursive deletion. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.