work_order_deleteDelete a DRAFT work order with no lines, freeing an open slot. One past draft is refused, naming the date it got there, and so is one carrying lines. The WO number is never reissued. work_order_status moves it on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_order | Yes | The work order id, e.g. WO-2026-0001, or the client name when only one job is theirs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: freeing a slot, never reissuing the WO number, and refusing past drafts or drafts with lines. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate.
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 compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by constraints and a pointer to the related sibling, with every sentence contributing useful information.
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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete enough: it covers valid inputs, refusal conditions, a key side effect (slot freed), and irreversibility of the WO number. The annotations provide the safety profile, and the schema covers parameter format details.
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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema with format examples and fallback behavior ('or the client name when only one job is theirs'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline score 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 specific action: deleting a DRAFT work order with no lines, and it explicitly ties this to freeing an open slot. It also distinguishes the tool from work_order_status by noting that status moves a work order onward, which prevents confusion with sibling 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?
It gives explicit conditions for valid use: only draft work orders with no lines may be deleted. It also states clear exclusions (past drafts and drafts carrying lines are refused) and points to work_order_status as the tool that moves a work order on instead of deleting it.
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.