Delete a static folder recursively, including all files and bundle descriptors. This action is irreversible—warn the store owner before proceeding.
Delete a statics folder WITH everything inside it, recursively, bundle descriptors included. No undo - 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive nature ('No undo') and the recursive scope, and advises warning the owner, which covers the key risks. It does not mention side effects like permission requirements or error behavior, but for a simple delete operation this is largely sufficient.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and key caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 delete tool, the description covers the core behavior and warns about irreversibility. However, it omits any guidance on the 'path' parameter, which is the sole input, and does not clarify what happens if the path is invalid or points to a file. These gaps prevent full operational completeness.
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?
The schema has a single 'path' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., relative vs. absolute, whether it must be a directory, or the path format), leaving the agent without critical information for correct invocation. Since coverage is zero, the description must compensate but fails to do so.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete a statics folder WITH everything inside it, recursively, bundle descriptors included'), specifying the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like engine_static_remove (which likely targets a single file) by emphasizing recursive deletion of the entire folder.
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 implies usage for recursive directory deletion but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It mentions 'warn the owner first' as a precondition but provides no comparison to engine_static_remove or other static tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.