PROPOSE a delete → Inbox (owner adopts; nothing deleted now). id preferred or exact name; flow_edge may use from+to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Entity/task/element/edge id | |
| to | No | flow_edge: destination screen | |
| from | No | flow_edge: source screen | |
| kind | Yes | What to delete | |
| name | No | Exact name/title (if no id) | |
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation only provides destructiveHint=true, which could mislead an agent into thinking the tool performs a destructive action. The description adds critical behavioral transparency by explaining 'nothing deleted now' and that the proposal goes to an Inbox for owner adoption. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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 a single sentence that packs purpose, mechanism, and parameter guidance into less than 20 words. Every part earns its place without redundancy or 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?
The description captures the core function and the key non-destructive nuance, but it lacks information about what happens after the proposal is made (e.g., how to check status, withdraw it) and what the response looks like. Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, a destructive metaphor), a brief mention of 'use withdraw_proposal to cancel' would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has a high description coverage (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'id preferred or exact name' and that 'flow_edge may use from+to', guiding the agent on which parameters to use in which scenarios. This is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.
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 tool's purpose: 'PROPOSE a delete', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by clarifying it does not perform an immediate deletion but creates a proposal ('→ Inbox; owner adopts; nothing deleted now').
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 clear usage context: it is for proposing a delete, not for immediate deletion. It also gives parameter usage guidance ('id preferred or exact name; flow_edge may use from+to'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.
With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.
The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.