delete_discussionPermanently delete a course discussion topic by providing the course and topic IDs. Removes the discussion and its content from Canvas.
Delete a discussion topic from a course. This action is permanent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic_id | Yes | The Canvas discussion topic ID to delete | |
| course_id | Yes | The Canvas course ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.11Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'This action is permanent,' which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by informing the agent that the deletion is irreversible. It also clarifies the target as a discussion topic within a course. No contradiction with the annotations is present.
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?
The description consists of two short sentences with no filler. The action is stated immediately, and the permanence warning is the only additional sentence, both earning their place.
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 two-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the target and permanence, and the schema fully documents the required IDs. It does not mention cascading deletion of replies or success/failure behavior, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the annotations.
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%, so the schema already documents the meaning of course_id and topic_id. The description adds no additional semantic detail for either parameter, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a precise resource ('discussion topic'), and the scope ('from a course'). This clearly distinguishes it from discussion-related siblings like update_discussion/create_discussion and from other delete tools by naming the resource.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_discussion to close or archive a topic. It also states no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.