Delete a Map or Journal only when empty (scaffold _map.md, index.md, log.md); otherwise the error lists concepts to move first.
Deletes a Map or Journal only if empty (just the scaffold _map.md, index.md, log.md). Otherwise nothing changes and the error lists the concepts: concept_move them first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| map | Yes | ||
| reason | No | Why (commit trailer) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the load, and it does disclose the key traits: a precondition guard, a no-op outcome ('nothing changes') on failure, and an error that enumerates the blocking concepts. It omits recovery/permission or irreversibility details, but the failure-mode disclosure is strong for a mutation tool.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then the failure behavior and the remedy. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers the critical path: precondition, no-op failure semantics, and the follow-up tool. Minor gaps remain around the 'map' identifier and any auth requirements, but an agent can call it correctly as written.
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 coverage is 50%: 'reason' is documented in the schema, 'map' is not. The description contextualizes what 'map' refers to but adds no format or identity details, and says nothing about 'reason' beyond what the schema holds, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the boundary baseline.
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 (Deletes) and resource (Map or Journal) with an explicit scope qualifier (only if empty). It reads clearly against map_create/map_update/map_list siblings because it names the exact deletion guard.
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 an explicit when: only invoke on an empty map (just the scaffold files). Gives the when-not and the alternative: if not empty, nothing changes and concept_move must be used first. Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.