Delete an artwork from the authenticated user's gallery. Requires auth + 'write' scope.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete_artwork"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Artwork UUID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits: this is a mutation, it needs auth, and it requires 'write' scope, which is genuinely useful context. However, it never states whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, nor what happens when the UUID is invalid or belongs to another user.
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?
Two tight sentences with the action and resource front-loaded and the auth requirement immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is terse to the point of leaving behavioral questions unanswered.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers what to send and who may send it. Given the destructive nature and absent annotations, the missing irreversibility/error-behavior statement is a real gap rather than a trivial one.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as an 'Artwork UUID to delete'. The description adds only the ownership framing ('authenticated user's gallery'), which is a marginal semantic gain; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') plus resource ('an artwork') and scopes it to 'the authenticated user's gallery', which cleanly separates it from read-style siblings such as get_artwork and list_my_artworks. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative, but the destructive intent is unambiguous.
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?
It states a precondition (authentication plus 'write' scope) and implicitly limits use to artworks the caller owns via 'the authenticated user's gallery'. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of a recovery or undo path, and no warning about acting on publicly owned artwork.
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.