delete_animalSoft delete an animal record from a farm by animal ID, optionally specifying farm ID, to remove it from active records while preserving historical data.
Delete (soft delete) an animal record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| animal_id | Yes | The UUID of the animal to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. 'Soft delete' does add genuine behavioral value by implying data is retained rather than destroyed, but the description omits cascade effects (identifiers, traceability events, group membership) and any permission or restore-path information.
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 verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Appropriately sized for the operation it names.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description should explain the consequences of a soft delete: whether the animal disappears from list_animals/get_animal, what related records are affected, and whether recovery is possible. None of this is present, leaving significant operational gaps.
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%, so both parameters (animal_id, farm_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 specific verb ('delete') and resource ('an animal record'), and the parenthetical 'soft delete' sharpens the operation's nature. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as update_animal or delete_record, but the resource is unambiguous enough to route correctly.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. Notably, sibling tools include restore_group and restore_location for their delete counterparts, but no restore_animal exists — the agent gets no signal about whether a soft delete here is recoverable or what the intended trigger is.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.