Delete a location from a Kanka campaign by supplying the location ID and campaign ID. Removes unwanted worldbuilding entries to keep campaign data organized.
Delete an existing location
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the destructive nature of the operation but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related data, what happens if the location does not exist, or whether any permissions are required.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word earns its place for a simple CRUD deletion tool.
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?
Although the tool is simple, the description omits important context: return behavior, error cases, side effects, and the relationship between the two required parameters. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot fully predict the outcome of invoking this 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It provides no explanation of what 'id' and 'campaignId' represent, how they relate to the deletion, or which is the location identifier. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema property names.
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 uses a clear verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('existing location'), which states the operation unambiguously. It distinguishes the tool from its siblings (create, update, get, list) even though it follows the same pattern as other delete_* 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_location or delete_character. The description simply states the action with no context, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.