hub_delete_modifierRemove a modifier from the catalogue AND detach it from every category at once — the till stops asking it everywhere. Check get_modifier first and tell the merchant which categories lose it. To stop asking it in ONE place only, use unlink_modifier_from_category. Past orders keep the options that were already rung up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| modifierId | Yes | Modifier id from get_modifiers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the blast radius (detached from every category, till stops asking everywhere) and what survives the deletion (past orders keep already-rung-up options). That is precisely the extra context the lower bar with annotations asks for.
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?
Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope of destruction, then prerequisite, then alternative, then the historical-data caveat. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, blast radius, prerequisite, alternative, and irreversibility boundary. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and warn the merchant.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Modifier id from get_modifiers'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond it — 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+resource with exact scope: removes the modifier from the catalogue AND detaches it from every category at once. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (unlink_modifier_from_category), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.
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 a prerequisite (call get_modifier first), a merchant-facing action (tell them which categories lose it), and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('to stop asking it in ONE place only, use unlink_modifier_from_category'). Nothing is left to inference.
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.