Delete an item (unpublishes first; removes images and models). Permanent. A published item is unpublished first so its AR page and embeds go quiet, then its images, models and QR are removed. Requires the same scope as creating items. CHANGES PUBLIC STATE. Requires scope: upload_images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | UUID | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional Idempotency-Key: repeat-safe retries return the original result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds far more: the item is unpublished first so its AR page and embeds go quiet, images/models/QR are then removed, the change is permanent, and it alters public state. That is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before a destructive call.
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 with the core action and its consequence, and the permanence and scope warnings are prominent. Slight redundancy: the unpublish-first behavior is stated in the parenthetical and then re-explained in the next sentence, though the second pass does add the AR page/embeds detail.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description covers permanence, the full cascade of deletions, the public-state impact, and the required auth scope. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.
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% — both 'id' and 'idempotency_key' are documented in the schema, including the repeat-safe retry semantics. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 (item) and immediately qualifies the operation: unpublish-first, then removal of images, models and QR. This distinguishes it from siblings like unpublishItem (which keeps the item) and deleteCatalog (a different resource).
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?
Gives prerequisites ('Requires scope: upload_images', 'same scope as creating items') and the permanence warning, which tell an agent when this is appropriate. It does not explicitly name unpublishItem as the non-destructive alternative, so routing between the two must be inferred.
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.