Deletes a game review from Infinite Backlog. Drafts only unless published=true and you named the review; confirm=true required. Never deletes the game.
Delete a review. Drafts only unless published=true AND you named that review. confirm=true required. Never DELETE GAME.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| wait_ms | No | ||
| published | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety gate (drafts only, published + ownership override), the confirm requirement, and an explicit scope warning. It stops short of stating irreversibility or failure/error behavior for a destructive 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?
Four tight fragments, front-loaded with the core action and preconditions and ending on the safety warning. No waste, though the phrase "you named that review" is slightly ambiguous.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. But for a destructive tool with zero annotations, the description omits irreversibility, permission/ownership mechanics, and the meaning of slug and wait_ms, leaving meaningful gaps.
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% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm and published, but leaves slug (the required identifier) and wait_ms entirely undefined in both schema and description — roughly half the parameters are unaccounted for.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Delete a review") and adds a scope guard ("Never DELETE GAME") that separates it from game-deletion operations and the sibling add_game_review. Clear and distinguishable, though terse.
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?
Gives explicit preconditions for use: drafts only unless published=true AND you named that review, plus confirm=true required. It states when the tool is applicable but names no alternative tool or describes what to do instead when the conditions fail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.