Deletes a comment trigger by numeric ID: stops it from firing, removes it from lists, keeps its stats, and detaches and pauses linked flows.
Delete a comment trigger. Soft delete: the trigger stops firing and disappears from lists, its stats are kept, and any linked flows are detached and paused (detached_flows says how many).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the trigger stops firing, disappears from lists, retains stats, and causes linked flows to be detached and paused. It also notes that a detached_flows count is returned, which is useful operational context for a destructive action.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the important soft-delete consequences following immediately. Every clause adds useful information without redundant wording.
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 simple one-parameter delete operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the non-obvious soft-delete effects and the detached_flows result, which are the main details an agent would need before invocation.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage and documents the single required id parameter as a numeric id. The description does not add further meaning about the id, but the schema already covers the parameter adequately.
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 states a specific verb and resource: deleting a comment trigger. It also clarifies that this is a soft delete, which distinguishes the operation from merely updating or pausing a trigger.
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 'Delete' and the soft-delete consequences, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as updating or pausing a trigger. There are no exclusions or named sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.