Delete a trigger from an AI agent.
WARNING: This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ID of the agent that owns this trigger | |
| trigger_id | Yes | ID of the trigger to delete | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive and idempotent. The description adds the irreversible nature ('cannot be undone'), which is useful but partly redundant with destructiveHint.
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 very short sentences, zero waste, and the warning is front-loaded after the core purpose.
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 simple delete tool, the description covers purpose and irreversibility, which is adequate. However, it doesn't mention required permissions or side effects beyond deletion, and there's no output schema to rely on.
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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a trigger from an AI agent.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like agents_trigger_create and agents_trigger_update, which perform different operations on the same resource.
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?
The description implies usage (to delete a trigger) but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives such as agents_trigger_update for modification.
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.