file_share_delDelete a file share on an fnOS NAS by specifying its path. Use this write operation to remove shared folders or shares that are no longer needed.
删除文件共享（写操作）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sub | No | ||
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| path | Yes | NAS 上的路径，如 /vol1/1000/文档 | |
| port | No | NAS 端口，如 5667（HTTPS）/5666（HTTP）/443 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| profile | No | 独立 session profile 名称，默认使用 default | |
| acl_mode | No | ACL 模式 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation but omits critical details for a delete tool: irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, and what exactly gets removed.
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 with no filler. It is structurally clean, though extremely terse for a 7-parameter destructive tool.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description lacks safety, permission, and alternative-tool context that an agent needs before invoking it.
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 high (86%), and the schema already documents parameters like path, host, port, and scheme. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (删除) and resource (文件共享), plus operation type (写操作). Clear enough to know what it does, but it does not differentiate from siblings such as file_share_add or file_share_info.
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?
Only labels the tool as a write operation; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternatives to consider. An agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.