Permanently removes a specified Salesforce record via REST using its sObject API name and record ID, with an optional target org.
Delete a record from a Salesforce org using the REST API. Permanently removes the specified record. Input must be a JSON object with keys: sObject (string), recordId (string), and optionally targetOrg (string).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this with 'Permanently removes the specified record,' clarifying irreversibility, but adds no permission requirements, error behavior, or confirmation semantics beyond what the annotations imply.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the destruction warning, then parameter shape. The final parameter enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place given the nested structure and low reported coverage.
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 mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and parameter shape. It stops short of permissions requirements or behavior when the record ID is invalid/missing, which would matter for a permanent delete.
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?
The description enumerates the nested keys (sObject, recordId, optionally targetOrg) and flags which are required, which is valuable given the nested object and the reported 0% schema description coverage at the top level. It does not restate the format hints (15/18-char ID, API name examples) that the nested schema already provides.
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 (delete) and resource (Salesforce record) plus the mechanism (REST API). The destructive verb inherently separates it from siblings create_record and update_record, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. It never mentions update_record or create_record as alternatives, nor any precondition such as confirming the record exists first. Usage must be entirely inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.