mcp_aql_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the operations remove data, should be gated by human approval, and should not be auto-allowed. The security warning about bypassing the per-operation confirmation gate is exactly the kind of risk disclosure that helps an agent invoke this tool safely.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and lists supported operations and element types before moving to caution and examples. There is minor redundancy ('Destructive operations that remove data' vs 'These operations remove data'), and the security warning is long, but it is important and all sections serve a purpose.

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 multi-operation destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, examples, security expectations, and a clear path to discover required parameters via mcp_aql_read. It doesn't describe return values or every operation's exact parameters, but the introspection instruction fills the most important gap.

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?

The schema has 100% property description coverage, but the description adds value by showing concrete payloads like { operation: 'delete_element', element_type: 'persona', params: { element_name: 'Old-Persona' } } and by instructing the agent to introspect for per-operation parameters. It does not enumerate every operation's required params, but the discovery mechanism compensates.

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 is explicit: 'Destructive operations that remove data' names the verb and resource, then enumerates supported operations (delete_element, clear, clear_github_auth) and element types. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create/read/update/execute tools.

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 makes clear when this tool applies: when data must be removed, with caution and explicit human approval. It points to mcp_aql_read for discovering required parameters, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer non-destructive sibling tools like mcp_aql_update.

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