Delete a physical inventory item and cascade-delete its change logs; requires materials:manage permission and uses the API key to determine the project, so no projectId is needed.
删除物资条目。需 materials:manage 权限。级联删除该物资的变动日志。 DELETE /api/projects/{id}/physical/items/{itemId} 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
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, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds real value beyond them: the required materials:manage permission and the cascading deletion of the item's change logs, which is a non-obvious side effect. It stops short of stating irreversibility or return behavior.
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?
Four short sentences, all front-loaded: purpose, permission, side effect, then route. Nothing redundant; the DELETE line anchors the agent to the exact endpoint.
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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers permission, cascading scope, and path derivation, leaving little an agent needs before calling. It could note irreversibility, but the essentials are present.
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 carries the burden. It clarifies that the project is derived from the API key and projectId must not be passed, which is useful routing context, but itemId itself is only referenced via the route template with no format or source guidance.
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?
'删除物资条目' names a specific verb (delete) plus the exact resource (a physical/materials item addressed by itemId), and the appended DELETE route removes any ambiguity. An agent can distinguish it from anon_patch_physical_items_item_id and anon_delete_physical_categories_cat_id without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb/resource and the stated materials:manage permission requirement, but the description never says when to prefer this over the patch/update sibling or when deletion is inappropriate. No explicit when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.