Permanently delete a workflow action by id, with explicit confirmation. Remove unwanted automation rules from Paperless-NGX to maintain accurate document processes.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a workflow action.
| 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 mark the operation as destructive and not read-only, so the description's warning is largely redundant, but 'permanently' adds the important irreversibility detail. This is meaningful because sibling tools include restore_from_trash, implying some deletions may be reversible.
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 entire description is one front-loaded warning plus a clear action. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
With two simple parameters, a required confirmation flag, a destructiveHint, and no output schema, the description plus schema gives an agent what it needs to invoke the tool safely. The only minor omission is any hint of the response value or side effects on workflows, which is usually trivial for delete operations.
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 fully documents 'confirm' as a required safety flag, and 'id' is inferable as the workflow action identifier from the tool name and description. The description itself adds no explicit parameter detail, but the moderate schema coverage leaves no serious ambiguity.
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 names a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('workflow action') and states the operation is permanent. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as update_workflow_action, get_workflow_action, delete_workflow, and delete_workflow_trigger.
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 phrase 'permanently delete a workflow action' implies the natural use case: call this when the agent intends to remove a workflow action for good. It does not, however, contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.