Delete a Cloud template by ID to remove unused configurations. Use force to bypass dependents and builds.
Delete a template by ID. Pass force to delete even when builds or dependents exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | Force deletion despite dependents (default false). | |
| template_id | Yes | The template ID to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that deletion is destructive. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that builds or dependents block deletion unless force is passed. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action comes first and the conditional force instruction follows immediately, making the key usage nuance easy to scan.
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 two-parameter destructive delete with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the non-obvious force path. It doesn't describe success/failure responses or cascading side effects, but those are minor given the simple operation and destructiveHint annotation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds only a slight expansion of the force semantics ('builds or dependents') over the schema's 'dependents', but does not carry the parameter documentation burden.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('a template by ID'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling delete tools that target other resources (snapshots, volumes, preview URLs). The 'force' qualifier adds a precise condition that sharpens the purpose.
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 tells the agent when to pass force ('even when builds or dependents exist'), which is the key conditional for successful deletion. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a delete operation the target resource is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.