Delete a specific VCF Automation action by ID, using projectId for non-system actions and force to override when needed.
Delete an action Deletes an action with a specific ID DELETE /abx/api/resources/actions/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action (path) | |
| force | No | ||
| projectId | No | Project ID of action (required for non-system actions) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating that it deletes, such as what force does, whether deletion is reversible, or what project scoping is required.
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 definition is short and front-loaded with the verb, but the first two lines repeat the same delete-action idea. The endpoint line also duplicates the annotation title rather than adding useful information.
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?
Annotations cover the destructive and idempotent profile, but the description omits important operation-specific context for a delete tool with a force parameter and projectId requirement. An agent still lacks guidance on force semantics and non-system action scoping.
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 already describes id and projectId, while force has no description; schema coverage is 67%. The description only repeats that a specific ID is used and does not explain the force flag or the projectId requirement for non-system actions.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Delete an action" and "Deletes an action with a specific ID." The phrase "specific ID" implies single-action deletion, which distinguishes it from bulk alternatives like abx_delete_multiple_actions, but no sibling is explicitly named.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention abx_delete_multiple_actions or any other sibling, nor does it state prerequisites or when deletion should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.