Delete a draft markdown file from the local drafts folder by providing its filename or absolute path. Use it to remove unwanted or obsolete drafts from your local CSDN draft library.
Delete a draft markdown file from the local drafts folder.
Args: file_path: Absolute path or filename of the draft to delete.
Returns: dict with {ok, message, file_path}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape ({ok, message, file_path}) in the absence of an output schema, and confines scope to the local drafts folder, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent/recoverable or how missing/invalid paths are handled.
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?
Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by compact Args/Returns blocks. Structure is scannable and there is no filler, though the Args line largely restates the parameter name.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return keys. It omits the behavioral context an agent most needs for a delete — irreversibility and error cases.
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, and it partially does by clarifying that file_path accepts either an absolute path or a bare filename of the draft. It does not explain basename resolution against the drafts folder or whether subpaths are permitted.
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) and resource (draft markdown file in the local drafts folder), scoping it to local drafts so it is distinguishable from the CSDN publishing siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like list_drafts or publish_csdn.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. It never suggests obtaining the path via list_drafts first, nor does it warn about irreversibility before invoking a delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.