Deletes a notification scenario configuration for an organization by scenario ID. Use it to remove obsolete or unwanted notification scenario settings.
Deletes a notification scenario configuration by scenario id of an organization DELETE /notification/api/scenario-configs/{scenarioId}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenarioId | Yes | Notification scenario Id (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the org-scoping context and the REST path but does not disclose what cascading effects deletion has or permission requirements, adding modest value beyond annotations.
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?
Two short lines with the scoping constraint front-loaded, no filler. The trailing HTTP path duplicates the annotation title, costing a little, but overall it is tight.
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 single-parameter destructive delete, annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameter, so no output schema is needed. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, with only cascading-effect/permission context missing.
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% with a single required scenarioId param already documented as the path id. The description restates it as 'by scenario id of an organization' without adding format or validation detail, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('notification scenario configuration') scoped 'by scenario id of an organization', which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like catalog_get_scenario_config or catalog_post_scenario_configs. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., ownership/permission requirements before deletion). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Deletes', leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.