Permanently remove a handoff by ID. This hard delete is audited; a tombstone records the handoff, sender, recipient, title, status, and who deleted it.
Permanently delete a handoff by ID (hard delete). The delete is audited: audit_log keeps a tombstone with the handoff id, who deleted it, and its sender, recipient, title and status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handoff_id | Yes | Handoff ID (UUID) |
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is audited and audit_log retains a tombstone containing the handoff id, deleter identity, sender, recipient, title, and status. It does not state whether related replies or dependent records are also removed, which is the main remaining gap.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the irreversible nature of the operation front-loaded ahead of the audit side effect. Every clause carries information.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: that the delete is permanent and what survives it. It stops short of explaining cascading effects (replies to the handoff) or permission requirements, which would make it fully complete.
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 100% for the single handoff_id parameter, so the schema already documents the UUID format. The description only restates "by ID" and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("delete a handoff by ID") and immediately qualifies the semantics as a hard, permanent delete, which is the key distinction an agent needs. The resource name and the hard-delete qualifier separate it from the sibling delete_knowledge and from complete_handoff without opening the 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Given siblings like complete_handoff, accept_handoff, and mark_merged, an agent would benefit from knowing when deletion is the correct action versus closing a handoff out normally, and the description never addresses that choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.