Deletes a file or directory from Tealfabric documents storage by path, letting you remove unwanted documents or folders.
Delete a file or directory from Tealfabric documents storage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the file or directory to delete | |
| tenant_id | No | Ignored by the API; auth tenant wins. Kept for backward compatibility. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / tenant_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Tenant ID (defaults to authenticated tenant)"New value: +"Ignored by the API; auth tenant wins. Kept for backward compatibility."v0.1.3Does 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, recoverability, or whether deleting a directory recursively removes its contents. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, that 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the space saved could have carried needed destructive-behavior caveats.
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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description leaves critical questions open: whether deletion is permanent, what happens to directory contents, and what the API returns. It is under-specified for the operation's risk profile.
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%, with both path and the deprecated tenant_id already documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable here given the schema does the work.
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 Tealfabric documents storage, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like move_document or download_document. It stops short of naming the sibling it displaces, but the action is unambiguous.
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 choose delete over alternatives such as move_document, nor any prerequisite or safety context. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the removal operation for documents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.