Permanently delete a target list by ID. Be aware that this action is irreversible and does not check for rules still referencing the list.
Permanently delete a target list (DELETE /v2/target-lists/{id}); cannot be undone. The tool does not check whether a rule still targets the list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Target list ID to delete (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation destructive and non-read-only; the description adds the permanence warning and the important caveat that no rule-reference check is performed. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the action and endpoint, then add the two essential caveats. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the core action, permanence, and the rule-reference caveat. It does not describe response/error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.
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 single parameter id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 ('Permanently delete'), the resource ('target list'), the HTTP endpoint, and a key consequence ('cannot be undone'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/update/get target-list tools.
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 description implies the use case: deleting a target list by ID, and warns that it is permanent and does not check for rule references. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when to avoid use, so guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.