delete_tenantPermanently removes a tenant from a Lendlord account using the tenant ID, requiring write confirmation before completing deletion.
Permanently delete a tenant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set true once the user has approved writes for this session | |
| tenantId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description reinforces irreversibility with 'Permanently', which is useful, but it omits what a delete cascades to, whether the confirm flag is mandatory, and whether the operation is recoverable.
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 single front-loaded sentence contains no filler, but for a destructive two-parameter tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It reads as terse rather than optimized.
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?
No output schema exists and the description does not mention the required `confirm` approval flag, cascade effects, or failure modes. For a high-stakes destructive operation with an undocumented required parameter, this leaves real gaps an agent could trip on.
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 50%: `confirm` is documented in the schema, but `tenantId` has no description anywhere. The description says nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only the presence of `confirm` in the schema prevents a 1.
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) plus resource (tenant) and adds the crucial qualifier 'permanently', so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs relative to add_tenant/update_tenant. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative (e.g., update_tenant for reversible changes). 'Permanently' hints at irreversibility but there is no explicit condition or exclusion for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.