Remove a diagram from a specific analysis by providing its analysis_id and diagram_id.
Delete a diagram from an analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagram_id | Yes | Id of the diagram, as shown by get_analysis. | |
| analysis_id | Yes | Id of the analysis, as returned by create_analysis or list_analyses. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to findings or explanations attached to the diagram, or what permissions are required. Only the bare mutation intent is conveyed.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a destructive tool.
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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least address irreversibility or side effects. It leaves an agent unable to judge the consequences of invoking 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 100%, and the schema already explains that diagram_id comes from get_analysis and analysis_id from create_analysis/list_analyses. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource (delete a diagram) and scopes it to an analysis, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like delete_analysis or delete_findings, but the resource noun carries the differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_analysis or set_diagram. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.