clause_deleteDelete one clause by id or exact title and report how many are left. There is no undo, and a deleted starter clause is not re-seeded. Use clause_update to change one you want to keep.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Clause id or exact title |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses that deletion is irreversible, that starter clauses are not re-seeded, and that the tool reports the remaining count. These specifics help the agent set expectations for the call outcome.
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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and input method are front-loaded, followed by the two critical warnings and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the input, the return behavior (reports count left), the irreversible nature, the non-reseeding caveat, and the alternative tool. With no output schema, the description adequately handles the response expectation.
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 schema description for the 'id' parameter already states 'Clause id or exact title' with 100% coverage. The tool description merely repeats this phrase without adding new constraints, formats, or examples. Since the schema 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 states a specific action ('Delete one clause'), the resource ('clause'), and the input method ('by id or exact title'). It also differentiates from the sibling clause_update by explicitly naming it as the alternative for editing, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart.
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 guidance: 'Use clause_update to change one you want to keep' – this is an explicit when-not and alternative. It also warns about the irreversibility ('There is no undo') and the non-reseeding of starter clauses, which informs when to use the tool cautiously.
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.