Permanently delete one of your universes. Webhooks that reference the deleted universe fail on their next eval — clean those up first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Universe slug. | |
| force | No | A universe still referenced by live webhooks refuses to delete with `409 universe_referenced`. Pass `force=true` to delete anyway — those webhooks will match nothing until re-pointed or deleted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / forceAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "A universe still referenced by live webhooks refuses to delete with `409 universe_referenced`. Pass `force=true` to delete anyway — those webhooks will match nothing until re-pointed or deleted.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden; it satisfies this by calling out permanence and the downstream effect on referencing webhooks. It also implies that deletion is not just a soft remove, since webhooks begin failing on eval. This exceeds a simple 'deletes a universe' statement.
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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the important warning is in the second sentence, making the most relevant information immediately visible.
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 description covers the dangerous consequences (permanent deletion and dangling webhooks), and the schema covers id and force behavior. There's no output schema, but for a delete operation the missing return details are less critical; still, no annotation means minor details like ownership/permissions are only implied by 'your universes'.
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 already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the description gets the baseline 3. The only slight added context is 'your universes' for ownership, but it adds nothing about the id slug or force flag that isn't already in the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and object — 'Permanently delete one of your universes' — and uses 'permanently' to make the irreversibility explicit. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_universe, update_universe, and get_universe.
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 states the core use case ('delete one of your universes') and provides a concrete precondition: clean up referencing webhooks first, because they 'fail on their next eval.' It doesn't name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the caution gives clear context for deciding whether to proceed.
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.