spr_remove_pipeRemove a pipe connection by ID from a fire-simulation sprinkler model to correct or clear outdated piping links before running hydraulic analysis.
Remove a pipe connection by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Pipe 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 and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the ID reference — no mention of whether connected nodes are affected, whether the removal cascades, or auth requirements.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Efficient, though almost too terse to carry much meaning.
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 simple one-param destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness and no output schema exists, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits any note on what happens to dependent network elements on removal.
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 single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' merely restates 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 clear verb+resource: remove a pipe connection by ID. An agent can distinguish it from spr_add_pipe and spr_update_pipe by the verb, though the description doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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 or alternatives are provided. The destructive nature of the operation is only conveyed by annotations, not the description, so there's no routing logic or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.