delete_rewrite_rulePermanently deletes a rewrite rule by its ID, clearing outdated proxy behavior. Use when you need to stop a specific URL rewrite in a debugging session.
Permanently delete a rewrite rule by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's only addition is 'Permanently', which reinforces irreversibility, but it omits auth requirements, error behavior for unknown ids, and side effects on active traffic.
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?
One short sentence with the verb, resource, and identifier front-loaded and no filler. Nothing 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?
A single-parameter delete tool whose safety semantics are fully covered by annotations and which needs no output schema. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, though a note on what happens to in-flight traffic would make it complete.
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?
With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load. Saying 'by id' signals the id identifies the rule to remove, which is marginally helpful, but it adds no type, format, or sourcing information beyond the schema's bare 'number' property.
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 states a specific verb (delete) and resource (rewrite rule) plus the keying mechanism (by id), so an agent can distinguish it from delete_chaos_rule or delete_mock_rule by the named resource. It does not explicitly route against siblings such as toggle_rewrite_rule, so it stops 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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no warning about what deletion entails beyond the word 'permanently'. The agent gets no routing guidance other than the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.