purchase-requisition_deleteDelete a purchase-requisition and its steps for good. Runs already started keep their own copy of the steps and stay readable: deleting the purchase-requisition erases nothing anybody signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true. There is no undo and nothing is copied anywhere first | |
| purchaseRequisition | Yes | The purchase-requisition id, e.g. CL-0001, or its name when only one carries it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is permanent, removes both the purchase-requisition and its steps, and preserves already-started runs with their own copies. This gives an agent accurate expectations about side effects and scope. It does not contradict the 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?
Two compact sentences communicate the action, scope, permanence, and the key exception about signed runs. There is no redundancy or repeated schema 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?
The critical context for a destructive operation is covered: what gets deleted, that it is permanent, and that signed runs stay readable. Return-value details are not described and no output schema exists, but this is a minor gap for a delete operation; the behavior is sufficiently clear.
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 already provides 100% coverage of the two parameters, including the confirm flag's 'no undo' meaning and the purchaseRequisition id/name format. The prose adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema documents, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 leads with a specific action and resource: 'Delete a purchase-requisition and its steps for good.' This clearly identifies what the tool operates on and its irreversible effect, and it distinguishes this destroy operation from sibling create, item, show, and list tools.
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 the tool should be used when a purchase-requisition must be permanently removed, and it reassures that signed runs remain unaffected. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or compare it to related tools such as run_delete.
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.