Delete a file permanently. This action is not recoverable, so use caution.
删除文件。不可恢复，请谨慎调用。 [English] Delete a file. Not recoverable, use with care.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | 要删除的文件。 | File to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the nuance that deletion is irreversible ('Not recoverable'), which is context beyond the boolean hint. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling, permissions, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value but not much more.
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 extremely concise, using two short sentences in two languages. The warning is front-loaded, which is appropriate for a destructive operation. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the existing annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and the warning. However, it does not address edge cases such as file not found, permission issues, or whether the path must be absolute. For a simple deletion tool, this might be sufficient, but it leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.
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%, and the schema already documents the 'path' parameter as 'File to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter information, such as path format, relative vs absolute, or file type constraints. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 file' with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling deletion tools like delete_objects and delete_layer by specifying 'file' as the target. The verb and resource are 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, exclusions, or any conditions for use beyond the generic warning to be careful. There is no reference to when to prefer this over copy_file or other file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.