delete_automationPermanently remove an automation by its ID. Use this to irreversibly delete Instagram comment-to-DM automations that should no longer run.
Permanently delete an automation by id. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known before reading the text. The description reinforces this with 'Permanently' and 'cannot be undone', which is modest added value, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether dependent data (leads, logs, broadcasts) is cascaded, or how failures are reported.
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, zero filler, with the permanence warning front-loaded right after the core action. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety signal and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any note on cascading effects or permission requirements before an irreversible operation.
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?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema documents only type and pattern. The phrase 'by id' identifies the argument's role as the target automation but adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond the schema's regex pattern.
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 ('Permanently delete an automation by id'), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling tools update_automation, get_automation, and create_automation. An agent can select it without opening any 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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and does not point to update_automation as the non-destructive alternative. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'delete'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.