delete_resourceDelete a resource with its fields, records, seed data and generated CRUD routes. Other endpoints in its folder are kept; the folder is removed only if it ends up empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | Yes | Resource slug (e.g. 'products') or id, from list_resources. | |
| workspace | Yes | Target workspace slug (from list_workspaces). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds the crucial detail of exactly what is destroyed (fields, records, seed data, CRUD routes) and the side effect on the containing folder. That is precisely the context annotations cannot express.
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 sentences, no filler, with the destructive cascade front-loaded and the folder side effect second. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.
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 two-parameter, fully annotated destructive tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation, its cascade, and its side effects. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (resource slug/id, workspace slug) are documented in the schema with their sourcing tools. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 (delete) and resource (resource) plus its full cascade scope: fields, records, seed data and generated CRUD routes. It also distinguishes itself from delete_folder by clarifying other endpoints in the folder are kept and the folder is only removed if empty.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The folder-preservation sentence implies this is not the folder-deletion tool, but the agent must infer that delete_folder is the right sibling for removing a whole folder.
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.