Remove an asset link in Accelo without deleting the asset itself. Provide link_id to delete the association.
Delete an asset link (does NOT delete the asset itself).
Args: link_id: The asset_link_id to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the destructive scope nicely (link not asset), but says nothing about permissions required, irreversibility, or what happens if the link_id is invalid. The scope clarification is genuinely useful, but a deletion tool with zero annotations needs more.
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?
Very short and front-loaded; the scope clarification appears in the first sentence. The Args block is a bit machine-y but 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 single-param deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essential scope point but leaves permissions, failure modes, and reversibility unaddressed. Adequate but with clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain link_id as 'The asset_link_id to delete'. That adds meaning beyond the bare integer schema, meeting the baseline, though it adds no format or validation detail.
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+resource ('Delete an asset link') and immediately clarifies scope with '(does NOT delete the asset itself)'. This distinguishes it from accelo_update_asset and accelo_delete_job-type siblings, though it doesn't name a specific sibling it could be confused with.
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, no mention of alternatives like accelo_create_asset_link or accelo_list_asset_links. The parenthetical clarifies what it does not do but provides no routing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.