cap_table_delete_cap_table_roundDeleteCapTableRound permanently removes an unpriced SAFE round (open or light-closed) plus its round-scoped securities/agreements/snapshots. Priced / engine-closed rounds are rejected (FailedPrecondition).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roundId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying the cascading effect ('plus its round-scoped securities/agreements/snapshots') and the rejection condition with error type ('FailedPrecondition'). This discloses important behavioral traits that annotations alone do not provide.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the action and scope, with no wasted words. It efficiently covers purpose, applicability, and limitations.
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 deletion tool with an output schema and two simple parameters, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, what is rejected, and the permanent nature. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and the annotations cover safety.
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 already describes both parameters as 'UUID value wrapper' with 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning. It implicitly connects roundId to the SAFE round but does not elaborate 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 function: 'permanently removes an unpriced SAFE round (open or light-closed) plus its round-scoped securities/agreements/snapshots.' This specifies the exact resource and action, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_cap_table_round or delete_cap_table_agreement.
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 explicit conditions: it is for unpriced SAFE rounds in open or light-closed states, and 'Priced / engine-closed rounds are rejected (FailedPrecondition).' This clearly tells the agent when to use the tool and when not, though it does not explicitly compare with alternatives.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.