ciso_assistant_api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_destroyDeletes a built-in metric sample by ID from CISO Assistant metrology data, enabling removal of specific sample records through the API.
api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_destroy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. It nonetheless adds nothing beyond the name — no note about what is removed, whether dependent dashboard widgets break, or what happens on deleting a non-existent id.
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?
There is no redundancy because there is no content — the string is an identifier echo, not a sentence. This is under-specification rather than 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?
A destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation requires the description to explain target identification and side effects. Nothing is provided, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.
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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description should explain what the id refers to. It provides no parameter information at all, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a sample UUID, a metric definition reference, or a composite key.
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 literally the tool name with underscores, restating the identifier rather than explaining the operation. An agent must parse 'metrology_builtin_metric_samples_destroy' itself to infer that a single built-in metric sample record is deleted.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_batch_action_create or the custom-metric-samples destroy sibling. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no warnings about irreversible deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.