Deletes an IaaS custom name by its ID, removing the specified naming entry from VCF Automation through the DELETE naming API.
Delete custom name Delete custom name with a given id DELETE /iaas/api/naming/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the custom name. (path) | |
| apiVersion | Yes | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information refer to /iaas/api/about |
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 readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not say what happens to objects referencing the deleted name, whether the call fails on an unknown id, or what the response contains.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the first line and the second line are redundant restatements of the same operation, and the endpoint line partly duplicates the annotation title. It earns its place overall but wastes a line.
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 simple two-parameter destructive delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition gives enough to invoke correctly: the verb, the target resource, and the id path. Only failure-mode and side-effect context is 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%, so both the 'id' path parameter and 'apiVersion' are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning with 'with a given id', which is the baseline expected when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 custom name') plus the REST endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what is deleted. It does not, however, distinguish the tool from its siblings iaas_create_custom_name, iaas_get_custom_name, or iaas_update_custom_name beyond the verb implied by the name.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; usage is only inferable from the word 'Delete'. Nothing tells the agent about prerequisites, whether the custom name must be unassigned first, or what alternative to pick for viewing/updating a name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.