blog_deleteDelete one of the caller's own blog posts, by id or title. Refuses posts written by anyone else, and refuses an ambiguous title rather than guessing. Irreversible, so confirm with the user first
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The post's id, as given by blog_list | |
| title | No | The post's title, or enough of it to be unambiguous. An ambiguous title is refused rather than guessed — deleting the wrong post is not recoverable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The blog post ID to delete"New value: +"The post's id, as given by blog_list"Input schema / properties / titleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The post's title, or enough of it to be unambiguous. An ambiguous title is refused rather than guessed — deleting the wrong post is not recoverable",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "id"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral details: ownership restriction, refusal behaviors for other people's posts and ambiguous titles, irreversibility, and the need for user confirmation. This goes far beyond the annotation.
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?
Three concise sentences, each packed with essential information: the action, the constraints, and the irreversibility. No redundancy or filler, and the main verb appears first.
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 all critical aspects for a deletion tool: ownership, identification methods, ambiguity handling, irreversibility, and user confirmation. Despite no output schema, the tool's behavior and prerequisites are fully specified.
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 provides 100% coverage for both 'id' and 'title', including the ambiguity refusal for title. The description's phrase 'by id or title' merely restates the schema without adding new parameter-level semantics.
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 'Delete one of the caller's own blog posts, by id or title', which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling blog tools like blog_create, blog_read, and blog_update by focusing on deletion and ownership.
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 provides explicit when-not conditions: 'Refuses posts written by anyone else' and 'refuses an ambiguous title rather than guessing'. It also advises user confirmation due to irreversibility, giving clear guidance on safe usage.
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.