Delete a file or an entire folder, including its contents, from a Docker sandbox's filesystem via HTTP DELETE. Use it to clean up logs or stale data at a given path.
Delete a file or a folder (with everything in it) of the sandbox's files HTTP DELETE /sandboxes/{name}/files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | e.g. /root/old.log; not /root, /home, /srv or /opt themselves, nor a volume's folder |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true. The description adds that folder deletion is recursive ('with everything in it'), which is meaningful extra context about blast radius. It does not mention irreversibility or auth requirements, so it modestly exceeds the annotation baseline without being rich.
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?
One tight sentence plus the HTTP endpoint. Front-loaded with the verb and the recursive-deletion caveat; nothing wasted.
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 destructive nature and recursive folder behavior are covered, but there is no output schema and the name parameter is unspecified. Enough to call it, but an agent lacks confirmation of what the response looks like and what 'name' refers to.
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 coverage is 50%; the path parameter has a helpful exclusion note, but the name parameter is undocumented in either place. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 folder in sandbox files), and clarifies recursive folder deletion. It does not differentiate from siblings like delete_sandbox_image_version, but the resource is specific enough to be actionable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus write_sandbox_file or create_sandbox_folder, and no prerequisites stated. The path schema gives a partial hint (what not to delete) but the description itself carries no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.