Permanently delete an evaluation dataset and its items.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"datasetId": "<datasetId>"
},
"name": "dataset_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datasetId | Yes | Dataset UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing the cascade ("and its items"), which is not in the annotations, but it says nothing about irreversibility confirmation, dependency failures, or what happens to runs referencing the dataset.
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 short sentence with the destructive qualifier and the cascade effect front-loaded. Nothing is padded and every word carries meaning.
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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag the risk and with no output schema to explain, the description covers the essentials: what is removed and that removal is permanent and cascading. Only the sibling routing and post-delete consequences are unaddressed.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Dataset UUID"), so the schema fully carries the semantics. The description adds no format, lookup, or validation detail beyond it, which is the baseline case for full schema coverage.
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 and resource ("Permanently delete an evaluation dataset") and adds the cascade scope ("and its items"). It is clear what it does, but it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling dataset_item_delete or dataset_update, leaving the whole-dataset-vs-item distinction implicit.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named even though dataset_item_delete and dataset_update sit alongside it. An agent must infer that this is the whole-dataset removal path from the wording alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.