Delete a specific race from a Kanka campaign by providing its unique ID and campaign ID. Removes the race entity to keep your worldbuilding data organized.
Delete an existing race
| 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?
There are no annotations providing safety context, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete an existing race' indicates a destructive action, but it does not disclose irreversibility, cascading effects, required permissions, or what happens after deletion.
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 wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter details captured in other dimensions.
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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to explain the role of campaignId, whether deletion is permanent, or any constraints or side effects. An agent would need to infer critical context from the tool name and sibling tools.
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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'id' and 'campaignId' are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, the description adds no meaning about which race is being deleted or why campaignId is required.
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 specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('race'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_race, create_race, update_race, and list_races without requiring additional context.
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_race or get_race. The usage is only implied by the verb 'delete' and the tool name; there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.