Delete a saved iCloud Mail rule by name to stop unwanted automated filtering or sorting. Use dry-run to preview changes before removal.
Delete a saved rule by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Rule name to delete | |
| dryRun | No | If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Input schema / properties / dryRunAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says the deletion is permanent, whether the rule must exist, or what happens on an unknown name. The one mitigating detail, the schema's dryRun flag, is never referenced in the description, so its role as a preview mechanism is left for the agent to discover in the schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the key constraint (identify by name) up front. It is efficient, though the terseness is a symptom of missing behavioral content rather than tight editing.
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?
This is an irreversible mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only place to disclose safety and effect. It omits permanence, error behavior on a missing rule, and any mention of the dryRun preview, leaving an agent under-informed before a destructive call.
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%, so both 'name' and 'dryRun' are already documented at the field level; this sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'by name' phrase aligns with the required parameter but adds no syntax, matching rules, or case-sensitivity 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 and resource ('Delete a saved rule') and scopes it to lookup by name, which cleanly separates it from create_rule, list_rules, and run_rule in the sibling set. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb alone is a reliable discriminator.
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 versus run_rule, run_all_rules, or create_rule, and no prerequisites stated. The agent gets no hint about the existence of a dryRun safety path before invoking a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.