delete_recordSoft delete a farm record by its UUID, optionally scoped to a farm ID, to remove it from active records while preserving its data.
Delete (soft delete) a record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| record_id | Yes | The UUID of the record 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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'soft delete' is genuinely additive — it tells the agent data is likely recoverable rather than purged — but it goes no further: no cascade effects, permission requirements, or recovery path are described.
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 front-loaded and the key qualifier ('soft delete') placed immediately after it. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.
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 low-complexity mutation with two params, one required, no nested objects, and no output schema, this covers the essentials. It still omits the consequences of the soft delete (recoverability, side effects, whether dependent data is affected), which matters for a destructive 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both record_id and farm_id are already documented, including the optional/default behavior of farm_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation here.
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 record') and the parenthetical '(soft delete)' immediately clarifies the kind of deletion. It is clear enough to act on, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the many other delete_* siblings in this namespace (delete_animal, delete_group, delete_premises_identifier).
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as restoring a soft-deleted record or where the record goes after deletion. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.