Delete an animal from ranch records by specifying its UUID. Removes the animal from active farm data while preserving the record for history.
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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing that this is a destructive write operation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance by specifying 'soft delete', indicating the record is not permanently removed. This goes beyond the generic destructive hint and helps the agent understand the operation's reversibility, though it does not detail side effects on related data.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words, directly stating the operation and its soft-delete nature. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.
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 delete tool with two parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the essential details: what it does and that it is soft. It could mention whether soft-deleted animals remain queryable, but the combination of clear purpose, schema, and annotations makes it sufficient for correct invocation. Minor additional context would elevate it further.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both farm_id and animal_id, including types and optionality. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('animal record'), and specifically notes 'soft delete', which distinguishes it from hard-delete tools and sibling tools like delete_record or delete_group. The verb+resource structure is unambiguous and the name aligns perfectly with the description.
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 implies usage (when you need to soft-delete an animal), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as delete_record, farm_archive, or remove_identifier. No prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned. The purpose alone suggests the appropriate context, but it is not explicitly spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.