storage_delete_fileDelete a file or directory from Oceanum storage by specifying a path; set recursive to remove directory contents.
Delete a file or directory from Oceanum storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to delete. | |
| recursive | No | For directories, delete contents recursively. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permanence, whether directories must be empty, permission requirements, or whether the operation can be undone. For a destructive delete tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no padding. It is well-sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight information density.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but a destructive tool with no annotations and no description of irreversibility or failure modes leaves the agent without critical context for safe invocation.
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 both 'path' and 'recursive' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral nuance beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (delete) and resource (file or directory) scoped to Oceanum storage, which is enough to separate it from storage_write_file, storage_read_file, and storage_list_files. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with one, so it falls short of the top score.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that deletion is likely irreversible. The only usage-adjacent hint lives in the schema's 'recursive' field, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.