delete_cropPermanently deletes a crop along with its readings, commands, actuators, and alerts; this action cannot be undone.
Elimina el cultivo con sus lecturas, comandos, actuadores y avisos. No se puede deshacer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crop_id | Yes | Identificador de 24 caracteres hex |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing WHAT is destroyed (readings, commands, actuators, alerts) and that the operation is irreversible, which annotations do not convey. It stops short of noting authorization requirements or confirmation expectations.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its cascade scope front-loaded and the irreversibility warning placed last where it reads as a caution. Nothing is redundant with 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both the blast radius and irreversibility for a destructive operation. Missing only permission/confirmation context, which is a modest gap for a single-parameter delete tool.
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?
Only one parameter (crop_id) at 100% schema description coverage including the 24-hex pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the parameter selects which crop to delete, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Elimina') and resource ('el cultivo') and goes further by enumerating the cascade scope (lecturas, comandos, actuadores, avisos). No sibling tool performs deletion, and the cascade detail separates it unambiguously from update_crop.
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 only implied by the destructive verb — an agent can infer this is the tool for removing a crop, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on prerequisites or confirmation, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. deactivating via update_crop instead of permanent deletion).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.