Permanently removes a correspondent from Paperless-NGX, affecting every document linked to it; requires confirmation because the deletion cannot be undone.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a correspondent from the entire system. This will affect ALL documents that use this correspondent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm this destructive operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Must be true to confirm this destructive operation",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "confirm"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the deletion is permanent (irreversible) and it cascades to ALL documents using the correspondent. It still omits permission/auth requirements and any recoverability detail beyond 'permanently'.
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 tight sentences, with the destructive warning emoji and 'DESTRUCTIVE' keyword front-loaded before the mechanical detail. No filler.
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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential consequence model (permanent + system-wide cascade). It stops short of permission requirements or recovery options, which would complete the picture.
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 only 50% – 'id' has no schema description and the description adds no meaning for it either. The description explains no parameter semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap even though 'confirm' is self-documented in 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+resource ('Permanently delete a correspondent') plus the system-wide scope ('from the entire system'), which the sibling delete_tag/delete_document_type do not share. An agent can distinguish this from update_correspondent or bulk_edit_correspondents immediately.
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 makes the consequence explicit, which implies caution, but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as update_correspondent or bulk_edit_correspondents, nor any prerequisite. Usage is implied by the destructive warning rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.