Soft-delete a pet; it is hidden from list_pets but not permanently erased.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the pet to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "01933f9c-7a2b-7c3d-8e4f-1a2b3c4d5e6f"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID of the pet to delete."Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "01933f9c-7a2b-7c3d-8e4f-1a2b3c4d5e6f"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining that the deletion is reversible (not permanently erased) and specifically hides the pet from list_pets. This adds valuable behavioral detail without contradicting the annotation—it clarifies the nature of the destructiveness.
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, information-dense sentence. It conveys the essential behavior with no fluff, front-loading 'Soft-delete' and then the key effects.
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?
With one clearly documented parameter, a well-described effect, and an existing output schema, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.
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 schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a description and example. The tool description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states it soft-deletes a pet and specifies the behavioral consequence (hidden from list_pets but not permanently erased). This distinguishes it from a permanent deletion tool and clearly identifies the operation and target.
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 context that this is a soft-delete operation, implying it should be used when the goal is to remove a pet from active listing without permanent data loss. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the clarity of the soft-delete behavior serves as adequate guidance.
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.