Delete an action from BoondManager by providing its unique ID. Removes unwanted or outdated records to keep your data accurate.
Delete an action
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Action ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an action' only restates the operation and does not disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible, what consequences may occur, or whether special authorization is required.
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 description is three words, front-loads the verb, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. It earns its place, though the resulting lack of detail is captured in other dimensions.
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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the irreversible nature of the delete, any response behavior, and confirmation/caution guidance, leaving an agent without enough context about consequences before invoking.
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?
The schema already fully documents the sole 'id' parameter with minLength and 'Action ID', so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies despite the description being minimal.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('action'), and the destructive verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_actions_create, update, get, and search. However, it is nearly a direct restatement of the tool name and adds no clarifying detail about scope or behavior.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, whether the action must already exist, or any caveats about deletion. The intended use case is only implied by the verb 'delete', and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.