Delete an endpoint and its examples. Use when the route no longer exists in the code. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Route path as written in the code, e.g. /v1/charges/:id or /v1/charges/{id}. | |
| method | No | HTTP method of the route, e.g. POST. Use with path instead of endpoint_id. | |
| endpoint_id | No | Id of the endpoint. Alternative to method + path. | |
| collection_id | Yes | Id from list_api_collections. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructive=true, but the description adds valuable context: deleting also removes examples and that the action 'Cannot be undone.' This goes beyond the structured hints, explaining the blast radius and irreversibility.
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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action, the triggering condition, and the key warning are all front-loaded and relevant.
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?
The description, combined with the detailed schema and annotations, fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the important consequence of irreversibility. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.
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 the parameters are already well documented. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but none are needed because the schema descriptions already explain path, method, endpoint_id, and collection_id clearly.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an endpoint and its examples.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_api_endpoint, run_api_endpoint, and upsert_api_endpoint by indicating the destructive action.
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 explicitly gives the condition to use this tool: 'Use when the route no longer exists in the code.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and sufficient compared to sibling tools.
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.
