Permanently delete one of your ideas and all of its validation data. This is destructive and cannot be undone, so confirm intent before calling. Not read-only; deleting an already-deleted idea is a no-op.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ideaId | Yes | The idea ID to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | The tool result rendered as human and AI readable text or markdown. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond annotations by explaining that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and specifying idempotent behavior as a no-op. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence adds essential 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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, destruction, idempotency, and ownership scope. No gaps identified.
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% with a basic parameter description. The description adds value by clarifying that `ideaId` must belong to the user ('one of your ideas'), which is an important usage constraint.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool deletes an idea and its validation data. The verb 'permanently delete' distinguishes it from any sibling tool; no other tool performs deletion of ideas.
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?
Clearly states it is destructive and should be confirmed before calling. Mentions idempotent behavior (no-op on already-deleted). Does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but there are no sibling delete tools, so guidance is sufficient.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct function or data aspect, from idea CRUD to simulations, content generation, and team management. Despite the large number, descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, e.g., 'get_idea_summary' vs. 'get_idea_agents' vs. 'get_idea_evolution'. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., 'create_idea', 'get_competitive_density', 'toggle_favorite'). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or abbreviations. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
63 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the platform's broad scope (idea validation, B2B, team, simulations) justifies many, the sheer volume can overwhelm an agent. A more curated subset or grouping would improve coherence.
The tool set covers the full startup idea lifecycle: creation, validation, retrieval of various analyses, updates, deletion, sharing, simulations, B2B lead generation, team collaboration, and market intelligence. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.
