Removes an image file from the store's images tree by its path. Use with caution: deletion is permanent with no undo or version history.
Delete a file of the images tree by its path. No undo and no version history - warn the owner first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the verb 'Delete' by explicitly stating 'No undo and no version history' and instructing 'warn the owner first,' which makes the destructive, irreversible nature clear. It does not cover potential side effects or permissions, but for a one-parameter removal tool this is strong disclosure.
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 with no wasted words: the first states the action and operand, the second adds a critical warning. The key scope information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the parameter's role, and the irreversibility warning. Minor gaps remain, such as expected response behavior or handling of nonexistent paths, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'path' locates a file within the images tree, which adds some meaning beyond the bare string type. However, it does not specify path format, relative/absolute details, or error behavior, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a precise resource ('a file of the images tree'), and a mechanism ('by its path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like engine_image_dir_remove (directories) and remove operations on other trees, so an agent can tell what it operates on without opening schemas.
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 description gives clear context for use—deleting an image file by path—which implicitly routes away from sibling tools for directories (engine_image_dir_remove) or renaming/adding. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.