Remove a page object from the project, ensuring no flow steps still reference it via persistPageObject before deletion.
Delete a page object (fails if any flow step still binds to it via its own persistPageObject usage -- check get_flow first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| project | No | Path to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the failure condition (if bound to a flow step) but does not mention other side effects like irreversibility or cascading deletions. It is partially transparent but leaves room for more detail on the deletion's impact.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence with a parenthetical caveat. No redundant information, no fluff, and the key point (delete action + precondition) is front-loaded.
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?
The description gives enough context to use the tool correctly: what it deletes, when it might fail, and a suggested pre-check. It does not mention output or return value, but since no output schema is provided and the operation is straightforward, the information is sufficient.
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 covers the 'project' parameter with a description, but 'name' lacks schema documentation. The description clarifies that 'name' refers to a page object and implies its role via the failure condition, adding some meaning beyond the schema. Coverage is approximately 50%, so the description partially compensates.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete a page object') and adds a specific condition about failure, making it unambiguous. It also differentiates from other delete tools by specifying the target resource type.
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?
Provides a practical precondition: check get_flow first if a flow step might bind to the page object. This gives actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool and when to avoid it. Does not explicitly list alternatives, but the warning serves as a strong use-case indicator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.