Permanently delete a DataForge project version and all its content. Use when a version must be removed; the current global version cannot be deleted.
PERMANENTLY DELETES DATA IN DATAFORGE. Delete a version and all of its content. The current global version cannot be deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | DataForge project id | |
| version_id | Yes | Project version id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'PERMANENTLY DELETES DATA.' It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: deleting a version cascades to 'all of its content' and the current global version is protected. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences with no filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded, the action and scope are stated immediately, and the constraint about the current global version is the only additional necessary context.
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 two-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the full impact, and the key edge-case restriction. The annotations handle the read-only/destructive profile, and nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 schema covers both parameters at 100% with clear descriptions ('DataForge project id' and 'Project version id'). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it appropriately relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 opens with 'PERMANENTLY DELETES DATA IN DATAFORGE' and then specifies 'Delete a version and all of its content,' clearly identifying the resource (version) and the full scope of the deletion. It distinguishes this from the many sibling delete tools (df_delete_project, df_delete_relationship, df_delete_measure, etc.) by naming 'version' as the target.
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 by naming the action and target, and it provides one important when-not condition ('The current global version cannot be deleted'). However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over the many sibling delete tools, nor does it name any alternative for handling the current global version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.