Delete a document type permanently across the entire system, impacting all documents using it. Confirmation required to proceed.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a document type from the entire system. This will affect ALL documents that use this type.
| 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, so the description's extra context about permanence, system-wide impact, and cascade to all documents adds meaningful behavioral transparency. It could be more precise about what 'affect' means for the documents, but it goes beyond the annotation.
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 short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded. Every word adds necessary clarity about permanence and scope, with 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 delete with annotations and a confirm flag, the description conveys the key risk and consequence. It could clarify what happens to the affected documents, but it is substantially complete for correct invocation.
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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The confirm parameter has a schema description, but the id parameter is only typed as a number with no explanation of what it references. With 50% schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.
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 document type. It also clarifies system-wide scope and the impact on all documents using that type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_document or update_document_type.
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 destructive warning and permanence imply when this tool is appropriate, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. It lacks direct routing guidance such as 'use update_document_type to modify instead'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.