knowledge_deletePermanently delete a specific support knowledge entry from an organization. Provide organization ID and knowledge entry ID to remove outdated content.
Delete a knowledge entry permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| knowledgeId | Yes | The knowledge entry id. | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the word 'permanently', which reinforces that this is an irreversible destructive action rather than a soft delete, but it discloses nothing beyond that about side effects or authorization requirements.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and carrying the important 'permanently' qualifier. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of omitting any additional context that could have been included cheaply.
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?
With no output schema and complete parameter documentation, the main remaining obligation is behavioral: whether deletion cascades to related knowledge sources, whether the operation can be undone, and whether elevated permissions are required. The description covers only permanence, leaving these gaps for a destructive mutation tool.
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% for both required parameters, and the schema already explains that organizationId can be found via organization_list. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, sourcing of the knowledgeId, or validation constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (delete) and resource (knowledge entry) with the crucial qualifier 'permanently', so an agent can distinguish it from knowledge_get, knowledge_update, and knowledge_search. However, it does not name or contrast any sibling tool explicitly, leaving that inference to the agent.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that the entry id must come from knowledge_search or knowledge_get), and no note that the operation cannot be undone. The agent receives only the bare action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.