Permanently remove a saved library from NASA SciX by supplying its library ID, returning markdown or JSON.
Delete a library permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | Yes | Library identifier | |
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / library_id / minLengthAdded value: +1v1.0.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so 'permanently' largely restates structured data. The description adds nothing about cascade effects (e.g. what happens to documents in the deleted library), permission requirements, or confirmation behavior that the annotations do not already convey.
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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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?
For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation with no output schema and partial parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It omits side effects, required permissions, and any indication of what the caller gets back.
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 only 50%: library_id has a description, but response_format carries no description in the schema and the tool description says nothing about either parameter. With the description adding zero parameter meaning, it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 library') plus the irreversible scope ('permanently'), which cleanly separates it from edit_library and delete_annotation. It does not, however, name any sibling or contrast itself with alternatives like delete_annotation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as edit_library for non-destructive changes or transfer_library for ownership changes. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.