evac_remove_waypointDelete a specific evacuation waypoint by supplying its ID, keeping exit-route geometry accurate before you run a simulation.
Remove a waypoint by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Waypoint ID to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether removal is immediate or staged, whether agents/journeys referencing the waypoint are affected, or whether the operation can be undone (unlike shape_undo/project_undo siblings).
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 short sentence with the action and key front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the behavioral detail this destructive tool warrants.
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 one-parameter destructive delete with annotations covering reversibility and safety, this is minimally adequate. It still omits side effects on dependent evac objects (agents, journeys, stairs) and whether the call errors when the ID does not exist or succeeds silently.
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?
There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'id' as the waypoint ID to remove. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes that, adding no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., how to obtain valid IDs). 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 ('Remove a waypoint') with the identity key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from evac_add_waypoint and evac_update_waypoint in the sibling set. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of the top band.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the add/update counterparts or evac_remove_journey. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.