Deletes a specified knowledge item by ID to remove outdated or incorrect project conventions, prohibitions, or repair lessons from the local RSI knowledge base.
Delete a knowledge item (deletion right). 删除指定知识条目（删除权）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 知识条目 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Delete' makes the destructive nature clear, and '(deletion right)' implies an authorization requirement, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to related records, or what errors to expect if the item does not exist.
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?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action. The Chinese translation duplicates the English content, which may be intentional for bilingual users but slightly reduces conciseness.
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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the basic action and hints at permission. However, because this is a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, it should more clearly describe the consequences of deletion and any irreversibility.
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%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no content about parameter format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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 a knowledge item.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as rsi_knowledge_update or rsi_knowledge_add.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The parenthetical '(deletion right)' hints at a permission prerequisite, but it does not explain usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.