Remove a line item from a SyncroMSP schedule. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental deletions.
Remove a line item from a schedule. The user MUST confirm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Schedule ID | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true | |
| line_item_id | Yes | Schedule line item ID to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Input schema / properties / line_item_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Line item ID to remove"New value: +"Schedule line item ID to remove"v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a removal and that user confirmation is mandatory, but it omits details about permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is appropriately concise, though the second sentence could be more specific about what confirmation entails.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and mandatory confirmation step. It remains incomplete regarding behavioral context such as irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to the removed line item.
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%, and all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or usage beyond what the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a line item from a schedule.' The domain 'schedule' distinguishes it from the similar sibling 'tickets_remove_line_item', but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.
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?
The statement 'The user MUST confirm' provides a critical precondition for invocation, which is a form of usage guidance. However, the description does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as scheduling_update_line_item or scheduling_delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.