Delete a query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that this is a destructive operation gated behind an environment flag, which is valuable behavioral context. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it doesn't mention irreversibility consequences, impact on dependent entities (e.g., references in pages), or side effects. The gating disclosure is a genuine plus but doesn't fully cover the destructive-action implications.

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 concise sentences with zero wasted words. The description front-loads the core action and adds the critical environment-gating caveat efficiently.

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 destructive operation with full schema coverage and no output schema needed, the description is reasonably complete. However, for a destructive action with no annotations, it could add more about irreversibility and what happens to dependent references. The gating info is helpful but the destructive implications are under-explained.

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 100% with a single parameter (actionId) already described in the schema. The description doesn't add detail about what format actionId takes, but with one fully-documented parameter there's little to compensate for. The tool name and schema together make the parameter meaning clear.

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 'Deletes a query or API action' with a clear verb (delete) and explicit resource targets (query or API action). It distinguishes from sibling tools like appsmith_delete_application, appsmith_delete_js_object, and appsmith_create_query/update_query, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 provides context that the tool is disabled unless APPSMITH_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true is set, which gives the agent important prerequisite knowledge. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like appsmith_update_query (for modifying rather than removing) or mention any confirmation requirements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.