Permanently remove a Cloudcraft blueprint by providing its UUID twice to confirm the irreversible deletion.
Delete a Cloudcraft blueprint after exact-id confirmation.
Args: blueprint_id: Blueprint UUID. confirm_blueprint_id: Repeat the exact UUID to acknowledge the irreversible operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blueprint_id | Yes | ||
| confirm_blueprint_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Input schema / properties / confirm_blueprint_idAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Confirm Blueprint Id",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "blueprint_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "blueprint_id",
+ "confirm_blueprint_id"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the operation is irreversible and requires a deliberate second exact-UUID confirmation, which is a behavioral protocol the annotations do not convey.
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 destructive action and its confirmation requirement are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by only two tight argument lines. Every sentence earns its place 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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers both parameters, the irreversible nature of the call, and the confirmation protocol. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does document both parameters meaningfully: blueprint_id as the target UUID and confirm_blueprint_id as a repeated exact UUID acknowledging irreversibility. It compensates for the schema gap, though it adds no format or validation detail beyond 'UUID'.
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 and resource ('Delete a Cloudcraft blueprint') and names the exact operation scope. It is immediately distinguishable from create_blueprint, update_blueprint, and get_blueprint without opening any schema.
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?
Gives a clear precondition for invoking the tool ('after exact-id confirmation') and signals that the operation is irreversible, which frames when it is appropriate. It does not name alternatives (e.g. update_blueprint) or explicit when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.