tebra_delete_appointmentDelete an appointment by ID from Tebra. Use this to permanently remove records; for keeping history, cancel the appointment instead.
Delete an appointment from Tebra by appointment ID. This is irreversible — to keep history, prefer tebra_update_appointment_status with Cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appointmentId | Yes | Tebra appointment ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the stronger nuance 'irreversible' and the suggestion to use an alternative for history, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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, front-loaded with the core action and the irreversible warning, followed by the alternative. Zero wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description covers the essential: action, irreversibility, and alternative. It does not detail error handling or return values, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%: appointmentId is described as 'Tebra appointment ID to delete', which is sufficient. The description adds no extra parameter details, but the schema already handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (delete) + resource (appointment) + identifier (appointment ID). Clearly distinguishes from tebra_update_appointment_status by naming the alternative and its purpose. No ambiguity.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (permanent deletion) and when not to (when history is needed), and names the alternative tool (tebra_update_appointment_status with Cancelled). Provides a clear decision rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.