Permanently remove a correspondent from Paperless-NGX. Requires confirmation to avoid accidental deletion, as this action affects all linked documents.
⚠️ 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.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing the blast radius: the deletion affects ALL documents that use the correspondent and is system-wide. This meaningfully raises transparency even though auth requirements and error behavior are not covered.
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 filler, and the destructive warning is front-loaded. Every part contributes either to warning or clarifying the scope of the operation.
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 delete with destructiveHint and a confirm field already specified in the schema, the description covers the critical risk: permanence and cascading impact on documents. It does not describe response or error behavior, but the operation is straightforward and the main hazards are disclosed.
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?
The schema documents the confirm parameter well, and the description reinforces the destructive nature that confirm is tied to. The id parameter has no description in the schema and the description does not compensate, though the name makes its referent reasonably clear. With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not enriched.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: permanently delete a correspondent, and clarifies the scope is the entire system. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_correspondent or edit_correspondents_bulk, though the deletion semantics are clear from the name and wording.
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 implies this tool is for permanently removing a correspondent and warns about the consequences, which gives an implicit sense of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention prerequisites such as the confirm flag, which is left to the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.