Delete a single vector point from a collection by its ID and return an ok status or error result.
Delete a single vector point from a collection by its ID. Returns a result object with ok status or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the point to delete. | |
| collection | Yes | The collection name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the call returns 'ok status or error' but never states whether deletion is irreversible, whether it errors when the ID does not exist, or what permissions/collection state (e.g., frozen collections in the sibling set) are required.
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 with the destructive action front-loaded and the return shape stated second. There is no filler, though the space spent on the return object could have been spent on preconditions.
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 two-parameter delete with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, missing disclosures about irreversibility and error conditions leave a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.
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%, with both 'id' and 'collection' documented in the schema. The description's 'by its ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete a single vector point from a collection by its ID'), and the word 'single' scopes it correctly. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from hyperspace_delete_collection or hyperspace_get_points, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this instead of hyperspace_delete_collection (which also deletes) or any bulk-removal path. The agent must infer from the name alone that this removes one point rather than a collection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.