Permanently delete a QR code from the user's account. Use this when the user wants to remove a QR code they no longer need. The short URL will immediately stop redirecting. This action frees up a plan quota slot and cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The unique identifier of the QR code to permanently delete. Obtain this from quality_qr_list or quality_qr_create responses. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses that deletion is permanent ('cannot be undone'), the immediate effect on the short URL ('immediately stop redirecting'), and the effect on plan quota ('frees up a plan quota slot'). This is robust behavioral transparency for a destructive action.
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 description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action, specifying usage, and disclosing consequences. No redundant or verbose content.
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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and all critical behavioral effects. No access to return values is needed, and the tool's scope is fully 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', including a description of its origin. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Permanently delete a QR code'), the resource ('QR code'), and the scope ('from the user's account'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quality_qr_update and quality_qr_get by emphasizing the permanent removal aspect.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user wants to remove a QR code they no longer need.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and sufficient for a delete operation.
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 action: create, read (list/get), update, delete, and analytics. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern `quality_qr_<verb>`, using lowercase snake_case. The only non-verb is 'analytics', but it still fits the naming convention and is immediately understandable.
Six tools is well within the ideal range for a QR code management service. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy or bloat.
The set provides full CRUD coverage (create, list, get, update, delete) plus analytics, which is a natural extension for tracking QR codes. No significant gaps exist for the service's purpose.
