Permanently delete a storage path and remove it from the entire system; requires confirmation as it affects all associated documents.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a storage path from the entire system. This will affect ALL documents that use this storage path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm this destructive operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the deletion is permanent, system-wide, and impacts all documents using the path. However, it stops short of clarifying whether documents are deleted, unlinked, or left in an invalid state, which would make the behavior fully transparent.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, and the all-caps warning effectively signals risk without adding fluff.
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 tool with no output schema, the description leaves important operational details unresolved: what exactly happens to documents that reference the path, whether deletion can fail if documents are still using it, and what the response or confirmation flow entails. The warning is strong but the operational semantics are 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 only 50%, and the 'id' parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining that 'id' refers to the storage path's identifier or how 'confirm' relates to the destructive nature beyond what the schema already states.
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 names the exact verb 'delete' and resource 'storage path', and clarifies the scope ('from the entire system') and the consequence ('affect ALL documents that use this storage path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_storage_path, test_storage_path, and create_storage_path.
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?
The warning explains the impact of deletion, but it does not say when to use this tool versus siblings such as update_storage_path, nor does it suggest reassigning documents first or avoiding deletion while documents still reference the path. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.