delete_functionRemove an existing function from an IDA Pro instance by its address, updating the reverse engineering analysis.
Delete an existing function.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Function start or internal address (hex or decimal) | |
| timeout | No | Timeout in seconds | |
| instance_id | No | Instance id override |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether deletion is reversible, what happens to the function's code/bytes, whether an open database or analysis context is required, or what errors occur if the address does not name a function.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should disclose consequences and preconditions. Nothing about reversibility, required database state, or failure behavior is present, leaving the definition incomplete for a delete operation.
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 schema already documents address (hex or decimal), timeout, and instance_id. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.
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 (Delete) and resource (function) with a clear scope qualifier ('an existing'). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from siblings such as create_function or delete_segment.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of when deletion is appropriate. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.