Delete a cue list and every cue it contains, with a required confirmation flag to avoid accidental data loss.
Delete a cue list and all its cues
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cueListId | Yes | Cue list ID to delete | |
| confirmDelete | Yes | Confirm deletion of cue list and all its cues (required to be true for safety) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important cascading effect (deletes the list AND all its cues), which is valuable, but omits irreversibility, undo support, and required permissions for a destructive operation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that leads with the verb and the cascading scope. Nothing wasteful, nothing missing from the core statement.
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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its cascade but leaves out usage context, reversibility, and sibling routing. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so both parameters (cueListId, confirmDelete) are fully documented in the schema, including the safety-confirmation semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (delete) and resource (cue list) plus the scope of the operation (and all its cues). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular/plural siblings like bulk_delete_cue_lists or remove_cue_from_list.
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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over bulk_delete_cue_lists or remove_cue_from_list. An agent must infer the single-list scope from the resource name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.