orquestra_delete_mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a valuable cascading effect—removal propagates to 'every harness config'—but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or confirmation, which are the critical traits for a destructive operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive scope is stated immediately and nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description conveys the cascading removal scope. However, for a destructive, annotation-free delete it omits failure behavior, idempotency, and permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the lone required parameter mcp_id is undocumented everywhere. The description never explains what an mcp_id is or where to obtain it, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 (Remove) and resource (MCP server) plus scope: 'from the catalog and from every harness config.' It distinguishes the destructive delete from the sibling toggle_mcp, which only enables/disables, so an agent can differentiate the operation without opening the schemas.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is offered. The description never contrasts this with orquestra_toggle_mcp (disable) or tells the agent what preconditions (e.g., server must exist) must hold, leaving selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.