Remove a file from a Godot project by providing the project path and the file path relative to the project root.
Delete a file from a Godot project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | File path relative to project root | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the destructive nature implicitly through the word 'Delete' but does not clarify whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the file does not exist, or whether directory deletion is supported.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler words or redundant details. It front-loads the core action and resource, earning its place fully.
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?
The tool is simple with only two required parameters and a well-covered schema, but it is destructive and has no annotations or output schema. The description leaves out important operational details like reversibility, missing-file handling, and whether only files (not directories) are deleted, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only the 'Godot project' context and does not provide additional meaning about path handling, validation, or side effects beyond the schema.
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 description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file from a Godot project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_file, read_file, and rename_file. The scope is immediately understandable and not a tautology.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention of caution for destructive operations. The description states the action but does not help an agent decide between delete_file and related file-management siblings like rename_file or write_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.