delete_ticketMoves a Freshservice ticket to the trash using its ticket ID, without permanently deleting it. Restore it later with the restore ticket tool.
Move a ticket to trash. It can be brought back with restore_ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | Ticket ID (the number shown as #INC-123 / #SR-123) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: this is a trash operation, not permanent deletion, and can be undone with restore_ticket. That materially changes how an agent should reason about safety.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the recovery path. No wasted text.
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 tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral nuance: it is reversible. It could mention permission requirements or whether the trash is user-visible, but the core information is complete.
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 the single ticket_id parameter is fully documented in the schema with the #INC-123 / #SR-123 format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Move a ticket to trash') and immediately clarifies reversibility via restore_ticket, distinguishing it from permanent deletion and from the sibling restore 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?
It clearly indicates this is the soft-delete path and names restore_ticket as the recovery alternative, giving an agent a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or any prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.