Permanently removes a stale computer account and its trust relationship from Active Directory, cleaning up unused or obsolete devices.
Delete a computer object from Active Directory.
Permanently removes computer account and trust relationship.
Example:
delete_computer(computer_name="OLD-DESKTOP")
Cleans up stale computer accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| computer_name | Yes | Computer name to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it usefully states that the account and trust relationship are permanently removed. It still omits important destructive-operation context such as required permissions, confirmation expectations, and behavior when the account does not exist.
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 short and front-loads the purpose and destructive effect. The example is useful, though the final sentence is somewhat redundant with the earlier stale-account context.
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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the permanent deletion behavior is appropriately called out. It remains incomplete regarding permissions, failure modes, and prerequisites that an agent should know before deleting an AD computer account.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as "Computer name to delete." The example shows usage but does not add format rules or meaning 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 computer object from Active Directory." It also clarifies that the account and trust relationship are permanently removed, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool disable_computer.
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 line "Cleans up stale computer accounts" implies a valid use case, and the example demonstrates invocation. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose delete_computer over disable_computer or when deletion should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.