Deletes a selected onboarding resource by ID in the current organization, removing it through the relocation onboarding API when it is no longer needed.
Delete the selected onboarding resource Delete the selected onboarding resource in the current organization DELETE /relocation/onboarding/resource/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the resource (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 readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the organizational scope ('current organization') and says nothing about irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions, so it earns partial credit beyond the 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?
The first two lines are near-verbatim duplicates and the third is a REST path that restates the annotation title. No sentence is front-loaded with new information, so the text is short but largely redundant rather than economical.
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 delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. However, it omits consequences of deletion and any indication of what the response contains, leaving the agent to rely entirely on structured fields.
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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented as the path id, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no format or sourcing hints beyond repeating the path template.
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 an onboarding resource) and scopes it to the current organization, which separates it from onboarding_delete_blueprint_by_id and onboarding_delete_plan_by_id. 'The selected ... resource' is vague wording, but the REST path confirms the exact target.
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 onboarding_patch_resource_by_id or onboarding_get_resource_by_id, no prerequisites or permission notes, and no warning about what happens to dependent objects when a resource is deleted. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.