Remove explanations by ID from an analysis when the code they describe is gone; if any ID is unknown, no explanations are deleted.
Delete explanations by id, e.g. when the code they describe is gone. If any id is unknown, nothing is deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| analysis_id | Yes | Id of the analysis, as returned by create_analysis or list_analyses. | |
| explanation_ids | Yes | Ids of the explanations to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses all-or-nothing semantics ('If any id is unknown, nothing is deleted') — non-obvious transactional behavior. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether deletions cascade to related records, which matters for a destructive operation.
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, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the edge-case behavior immediately after. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it covers scope and failure semantics. It falls short only on irreversibility and permission/confirmation expectations, which arguably an agent should still know before invoking a delete.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or batching nuance beyond 'by id' for either analysis_id or explanation_ids.
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 explanations by id') that distinguishes it from the sibling deletes (delete_findings, delete_analysis, delete_diagram). The agent can identify exactly what gets removed without opening the schema.
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?
Gives a concrete triggering context ('when the code they describe is gone'), which is more than most delete tools offer. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but the resource-scoped siblings make the choice fairly unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.