delete_edge_routeDeletes a route from an ArvanCloud edge compute instance by edge compute ID and route ID. Use to remove obsolete or unwanted edge routing configurations.
[DESTRUCTIVE] OpenAPI: DELETE /edge-computes/{edgeComputeId}/routes/{route_id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| route_id | Yes | ||
| edge_compute_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the '[DESTRUCTIVE]' tag merely repeats structured data with no added value. The description does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or downstream effects on live traffic — the context an agent needs for a delete operation.
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?
A single compact line with the destructive marker front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the 'OpenAPI:' prefix is largely noise for an agent that already has the tool name and schema.
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 destructive, open-world delete with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum state whether deletion is irreversible, what state/impact results, and how to identify the correct route and edge compute.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters are undocumented anywhere. The OpenAPI path template does map edgeComputeId and route_id to their positions, which is marginally useful, but it adds no format, constraint, or lookup guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 verb and resource (DELETE edge route) and the exact REST path, so the operation identity is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like update_edge_route beyond the verb, and never explains what an edge route is or what its removal implies.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_edge_route, list_edge_routes, or whether prerequisites exist (e.g., route must be detached from a deployment). Context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.