huly_delete_documentPermanently delete a Huly document by providing its documentId and setting confirm to true. Verify the ID first because this action is irreversible.
Delete a document. This cannot be undone, so confirm the documentId is correct first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be explicitly true for the deletion to run | |
| documentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that deletion cannot be undone and instructs the agent to confirm the documentId first, which is critical for a destructive operation. However, it does not mention other behaviors like cascading effects or required permissions, leaving some gaps.
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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the most important caveat (irreversibility). Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 somewhat thin. It covers the action and the irreversibility warning, but does not specify what happens on success (e.g., return format) or any prerequisites beyond confirming the ID. A bit more context about fallback behavior or failure states would make it complete.
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?
The schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'confirm' parameter is described in the schema, while 'documentId' is not). The description adds modest context by telling the agent to 'confirm the documentId is correct', which hints at the parameter's purpose but does not add detailed semantics for either parameter. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.
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 a specific resource ('a document'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like huly_get_document or huly_update_document. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The destructive nature implies caution, but there is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., being certain the document is the intended one) or when not to use it. Usage context is only implied by the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.