Remove a record from Dynamics 365 CRM by supplying its entity set and GUID, letting AI agents complete CRUD cleanup and data maintenance tasks.
Delete an entity record from Dynamics 365
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | The unique identifier (GUID) of the entity record to delete | |
| entitySet | Yes | Entity set name (plural form, e.g., "contacts", "accounts", "opportunities") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It does not disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether it is a soft or hard delete, what permissions are required, or how cascading relationships behave. Only the implied mutation semantic is conveyed.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the operation and target front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting necessary warnings, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits essentials: irreversibility, required permissions, cascade effects, and failure modes. An agent could call it correctly but without understanding the consequences.
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 both entitySet and entityId are fully documented in the schema (including plural-form examples). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an entity record from Dynamics 365'), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like update_entity or create_entity, but the verb alone makes the distinction obvious in practice.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_entity or other siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the record must exist, or that an ID must first be obtained via get_entity/query_entities). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.