Delete a specific pending feedback item by ID to remove browser feedback submitted by mistake or no longer relevant.
Delete a specific pending feedback item by ID. Use this when a user wants to remove feedback they submitted by mistake or that is no longer relevant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the feedback item to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It never states that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether confirmation is required, what happens on an invalid or already-processed ID, or any permission requirements — only the implicit 'pending' scope survives.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste: the action and subject come first, and the usage cue follows. 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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition is functionally sufficient to invoke correctly. However, given zero annotation coverage on a destructive operation, it should say more about irreversibility or confirmation before being considered complete.
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% for the single required id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 concrete verb (delete) plus a specific resource (a pending feedback item by ID), which cleanly separates it from the get/preview/wait siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it does not reach the top of the scale.
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?
Gives clear triggering conditions: user submitted feedback by mistake or it is no longer relevant. It offers no exclusions or preferred alternatives (e.g., when to edit vs. delete), but the intended context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.