Deletes a row at a 0-based index from an inline repeat group on an ELSTER form page. Use it to remove unwanted entries from repeating form sections before checks or submission.
Deletes row index (0-based) of an inline repeat group on a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rid | No | ||
| group | Yes | ||
| index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive mutation but does not disclose whether deletion is reversible, whether subsequent row indices shift, permission requirements, or what is returned. The '0-based' note is the only behavioral detail.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tight, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. Key details an agent needs to call it correctly, such as the meaning of `rid` and post-delete behavior, are missing.
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 0%, so the description must document all three parameters. It explains `index` ('0-based') and hints at `group`, but leaves `rid` entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('row index of an inline repeat group'), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the obvious sibling elster_form_add_row or clarify its role in the form-editing workflow.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description never mentions the related add/set page tools or when deleting a repeat-group row is appropriate versus other form mutations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.