Delete a Redmine news item by its ID, with mandatory confirmation to ensure the action is intentional.
Delete news (DELETE /news/:id.json). Requires confirm: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to perform destructive action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description repeats the 'confirm: true' requirement already present in the schema, adding no new behavioral information. It does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful context beyond the schema.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with the action front-loaded. It avoids verbosity, though it may be too terse for completeness; however, that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw.
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?
As a destructive delete operation, the description is minimal and lacks crucial context: return values, side effects, permission requirements, or any consequences. It does not explain what happens after deletion or if the action is reversible. This is insufficient for an agent to fully assess the operation.
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?
The description only reiterates 'confirm: true' which is already documented in the schema. It provides no explanation for the 'id' parameter, which lacks a schema description. Thus, it adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description clearly states 'Delete news' with the specific HTTP endpoint, making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling news tools (create, update, list, get) by the verb and path.
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?
It mentions the confirm prerequisite, which is a usage requirement, but does not explicitly guide when to use this over alternatives. Since it is a delete, the context is self-evident, but no permissions or exclusions are noted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.