octav_delete_bundlePermanently delete a bundle while keeping its addresses in the address book. Requires confirm: true and costs 1 credit.
Delete a bundle. Its addresses stay in the address book. Requires confirm: true. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true. Confirms permanently deleting the bundle. | |
| bundleId | Yes | Bundle id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: addresses survive deletion in the address book, the confirm precondition, and a cost of 1 credit. That is real value beyond the structured hints, though it omits whether other bundle metadata is lost.
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?
Four terse sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and the destruction-survival fact before the precondition and cost. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of 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 covers the mutation's blast radius, precondition, and cost. Only the failure behavior (e.g., what happens on confirm=false or invalid bundleId) is left unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including confirm's "must be true" semantics. The description restates the confirm requirement and adds the credit cost, but contributes no new syntax or meaning for bundleId.
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 bundle") and immediately clarifies the side effect on contained addresses, which implicitly separates it from octav_remove_address_book_entry. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full 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?
The description gives a precondition ("Requires confirm: true") but never says when to choose this over octav_remove_bundle_address or what the user-facing consequence of deleting versus emptying a bundle is. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.