Deactivates a KikoBooks vendor by setting it inactive using the vendor_id. Performs a soft delete, preserving records while removing the vendor from active use.
Delete (deactivate) a vendor in KikoBooks. This performs a soft delete by setting the vendor as inactive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor_id | Yes | The Vendor ID to delete (soft delete — sets inactive) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a soft delete setting the vendor inactive, which materially changes an agent's risk assessment. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether the change is reversible, or the effect on the vendor's existing bills/payments.
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 short sentences with zero waste; the soft-delete behavior is front-loaded alongside the action. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential surprise (delete is actually deactivate). It is nearly complete, missing only the reversibility/auth details an agent might want before mutating data.
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 100% and the single parameter's schema description already contains the same soft-delete note. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete (deactivate) a vendor in KikoBooks') and clarifies the mode of deletion. An agent can tell what the tool targets, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_vendor or void_bill.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It does not say how this differs from update_vendor (which could also set inactive) or when to prefer deactivation over other removal paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.