Deletes an image profile by its ID through the VCF Automation IaaS API, removing that profile from available image configurations.
Delete image profile Delete image profile with a given id DELETE /iaas/api/image-profiles/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the image. (path) | |
| apiVersion | No | 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 covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether deletion fails when the profile is in use, whether dependent resources are affected, or what authorization is needed.
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?
Short and front-loaded, but the phrase 'Delete image profile' is repeated verbatim across two lines and the third line merely restates the endpoint. Some redundancy that could be collapsed without losing 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?
For a destructive single-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits the one thing that would genuinely help an agent: failure conditions and side effects of deleting an image profile.
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 the id and apiVersion parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'with a given id' and adds no format, sourcing, or versioning nuance, 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 and resource (delete image profile) plus the exact REST path, which separates it from sibling delete tools such as iaas_delete_network_profile and iaas_delete_storage_profile. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 versus alternatives (e.g. iaas_update_image_profile or iaas_get_image_profile), and no prerequisites such as needing the image profile to be unused. The only usage signal is the implicit 'given id'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.