Permanently delete a form and all its submissions after user confirmation. Remove unwanted forms from Cmssy CMS when they are no longer needed.
Permanently delete a form and all its submissions. Only call after the user explicitly confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idOrSlug | No | The form's id or slug to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is permanent ('Permanently delete') and that it cascades to submissions ('and all its submissions'), which are key destructive behaviors. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or other side effects, but for a simple delete operation, this is adequate.
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 is two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence conveys the core action and scope; the second adds a critical usage condition. Every word earns its place, and the critical caution is front-loaded.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential information: what is deleted, the permanence, the scope, and the required confirmation step. An agent can call this tool correctly with no additional context. No critical gaps are evident.
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 parameter 'idOrSlug' is documented with 'The form's id or slug to delete'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for fully covered parameters. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's explanation.
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'), the resource ('form'), and the scope ('and all its submissions'). It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_form_submission, which targets a single submission. The purpose is immediately clear.
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 an explicit condition for when to call: 'Only call after the user explicitly confirms.' This is a clear usage guideline that addresses the critical prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternative tools, but the clarity of purpose largely compensates for that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.