UNDERSTANDING — Delete a list you own. Priced B1 (single-entity synthesis) — $0.01 per call under pay-as-you-go; included in Understanding and Influence. See apis://prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | List id to delete, as list_lists lists it. | |
| context | No | Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / context / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable."New value: +"Optional: one sentence on why you are asking. Never used to rank; read only if a result is wrong."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"List id to delete, as list_lists lists it."Input schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: why you are asking. One sentence — the task you are trying to complete, or what you expect to get back. Never included in the answer and never used to rank; it is read only when a result turns out to be wrong, which is when knowing the intent is what makes the report actionable.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds the ownership/authorization constraint, but does not say whether the delete is permanent, what happens to list items, or whether it can be undone.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase and the rest is a compact pricing/tier note. The pricing sentence is metadata rather than tool semantics, which is slightly off-topic but brief and genuinely useful for cost-aware agents.
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 destructive tool with full schema coverage, a rich annotation set, and no output schema, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The only material omission is the consequence of deletion (permanence, effect on list items).
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%, so both `id` and `context` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or usage detail for either parameter, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("Delete a list") plus a scoping constraint ("you own"), which cleanly separates it from create_list, get_list, and add_to_list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no mention that deletion is irreversible or what to do instead (e.g., set_visibility or unwatch_listing). The only usage hint is the ownership precondition embedded in the purpose sentence.
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.