Deletes a storage profile by ID to remove a storage class. Use it to clean up unused storage profiles in VCF Automation.
Delete storage class Delete storage profile with a given id DELETE /iaas/api/storage-profiles/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the storage profile. (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 openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation and the raw HTTP path – no mention of what happens to dependent entities, whether associations must be removed first, or what the deletion returns.
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?
Three lines where two say the same thing ('Delete storage class' vs 'Delete storage profile'), so there is avoidable duplication. It is short and front-loaded, but the redundancy costs it a point.
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, idempotent single-parameter delete with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient – the annotations carry the safety burden. However, on a tool with ~15 provider-specific delete siblings, the missing disambiguation guidance is a real completeness gap.
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%, documenting both 'id' (path) and 'apiVersion'. The description's phrase 'with a given id' merely echoes the schema, adding no format or constraint detail, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete storage profile with a given id'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the many sibling delete tools (iaas_delete_aws_storage_profile, iaas_delete_azure_storage_profile, iaas_delete_vsphere_storage_profile), so an agent cannot tell from the description why the generic one is preferable.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set of provider-specific storage profile deletes. The usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.